The argument against multiple Registries

[Jim Fleming]

On Sunday, February 23, 1997 1:04 PM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at ACCUTEK.COM] wrote:
@ ABSTRACT:  Instead of building multiple stand-alone registries, or even one
@ stand-along registry, let's consider asking an existing organization with
@ Registry and Internet experience to take on the ARIN function.  This means
@ that the overhead to support the Registry is shared with other functions.
@ Specific organizations are mentioned as possibilities.
@ 
@ 

Thanks for a real discussion...maybe you should be on the ARIN "Board"...
the rest of the Board members do not seem to be taking an interest in ARIN.
I guess they do not have time. That worries me...

@ To all:
@      I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each
@ state of the United States, and infer from some other comments that each
@ territorality (state, province, and small country) should have a Registry
@ for Internet Numbers.  I wish to state my opposition to such a distributed
@ registry and present my rationale for that opposition thusly.
@      I base my opposition on the Three Laws of Murphy:  (1) It's never as
@ easy as it looks; (2) It always takes longer than you think; and (3) if
@ anything can go wrong, it will.  Let's look at how these quixotic laws
@ would work in the multiple-Registry environment, using the existing
@ automobile registration system in the United States as our parallel model.
@      It goes without saying that the existing vehicle tag system can issue
@ the same license number to at least 50 different vehicles.  I say "at
@ least" because  some states have issued the same number multiple times to
@ different vehicles, and also because some people have committed fraud and
@ have a single tag adorning multiple vehicles.  Law enforcement *hates* this
@ scheme, because it means that an officer has to learn the "colors" of each
@ state -- and the problem is compounded by states issuing difference schemes
@ of plates.  (Nevada has three separate color schemes for its vehicle tags,
@ for example.)
@      The suggestion has been to allocate an /8 to each registry.  I contend
@ that you might want to consider allocating blocks of /12 because no every
@ registry is going to need the full 16-million-endpoint assignments, not to
@ mention the problem of eating numbers so fast that growth of the Internet
@ outside of North America would be stifled.
@      If you have as few as 60 Registries in North America (notice I'm not
@ even looking at Central or South America at this point) you have a *huge*
@ fixed overhead expense incurred by each registry.  Remember, in my strawman
@ back-of-the-envelope budget, about a million dollars went for minimal staff
@ and overhead all by itself.  So instead of having a two-million aggregate
@ budget, you would have AT LEAST SIXTY MILLION aggregate budget.
@      I don't think so.
@ ***
@ 

I understand your points and respect your opinion.

I would point out that the U.S. Government and people in general
like to see commerce expand. There are many operations in the
U.S. and elsewhere which could be run with 1/100th the staff. This
often does not occur because people need jobs and companies like
to employ people as long as it helps maximize their bottom line.

Also, you are missing the fact that the registries that I proposed
are just the tip of the ice-berg of a new industry. That industry can
not grow if you do not seed the landscape with people who understand
the basics and train themselves to take on the next levels and products
that will naturally come to the "registry industry".

I consider the 49 new registries to be an investment, an investment
in America's future in the registry industry. That industry goes far, far
beyond domain names and IP addresses.

If the U.S. does not make these investments, using the NSF trust
fund established for such a purpose, then the U.S. runs the risk
of losing out to "off-shore" registries and traditional banking nations
like Switzerland.

Please do not judge the ice-berg by the small tip you see...
and please do sell your fellow Americans short...

@ 
@      So let's look at another direction.  So much of the budget would be
@ for office space, basic office services such as payroll, accounts
@ receivable, accounts payable, and the ONE PERSON really doing the work we
@ need, doling out Internet Numbers.  Two million dollars to support ONE
@ PERSON.  For based on the comments on the list, one person could handle
@ easily 300 allocations -- if that's all that is involved.  That works out
@ to less than two allocations per business day.
@      So why do we need a large staff?  So why do we need to have this huge
@ connectivity?  Another entity is responsible for the functionality of the
@ DNS, and IN-ADDR.ARPA is a ---DNS--- function, not an allocation function.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ The ARIN person would give out numbers that are guaranteed to be uniquely
@ allocated, from ONE place in the Americas.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

This my friend is the heart of the problem....."The ARIN person"....

If that person is white...will blacks receive numbers...?
If that person is a man...will women receive numbers...?
If that person is a woman...will men receive numbers...?
If that person is a Catholic...will Protestants receive numbers...?

...are you getting the picture....???...if not, I can provide a few more...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

  The person obtaining the
@ allocation then pays a fee to the DNS maintenance people for the ability to
@ have endpoints in that allocation looked up using IN-ADDR.ARPA.
@ Co-ordination with the DNS folks?  That can be done by allowing the DNS
@ authority to access the ARIN assignment database (maybe even have ARIN send
@ the database at intervals) so that requests can be authenticated.
@ 
@ 
@ COUNTER-PROPOSAL:
@ 
@      Have Kim go to work for IEEE in their Registry department, where they
@ already have the infrastructure in place:  connectivity, support staff,
@ office space, and all the rest.  Instead of a $3 million a year budget, the
@ budget could be as small as $150K a year, fully burdened.
@      As for membership, the IEEE already has a full scheme in place.
@      Don't like the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers?  Then
@ talk to the ACM, Association for Computing Machinery.  All the comments
@ about the IEEE also apply to the ACM.
@      Policy would be set by existing organizations and groups.  If we don't
@ have one already performing the function, we should get the organizations
@ who are most concerned about the routing problem under one virtual roof and
@ hash out what would be acceptable to them, and ARIN could then use that as
@ policy direction.
@ 
@ ---
@ Stephen Satchell, {Motorola ISG, Satchell Evaluations}
@ <http://www.accutek.com/~satchell> for contact and other info
@ Opinions stated here are my PERSONAL opinions.
@ 

I would support your idea that the IEEE, ACM and similar bodies
become registries. They could be one of many and using your
save money arguement, this would be a low-cost way to start.

I guess I do not understand why the world should be concerned
about who works where....this is not some employment service
is it...?....also, why is it a forgone conclusion who is going to
work at ARIN...?...if and when the company is formed, I assume
the employment office will be clearly labeled...

Will ARIN be an equal opportunity employer...?

Will ARIN be an equal opportunity registry...?

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

e-mail:
JimFleming at unety.net
JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)