The argument against multiple Registries

[Jim Fleming]

On Monday, February 24, 1997 4:21 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc at APNIC.NET] wrote:
@ Stephen,
@ 
@ >I have read Mr. Fleming's comments about setting up a Registry in each
@ >state of the United States, 
@ 
@ This was a mistake, as you'll likely find out.  Now Fleming will
@ probably think you are his friend and you may have the joy of being
@ put onto his personal mailing list.  You see, Fleming thinks his ideas
@ are so important that not only does he spew to multiple mailing lists
@ (multiple times), he sends his spew via private email.  Really, the
@ best way of dealing with Fleming is to simply (and forcibly via a mail
@ filter) ignore him.
@ 
@ >So why do we need a large staff?  
@ 
@ As has been explained in the past, current allocation policies (as
@ documented in RFC 2050) require the registry staff to vette each
@ request.  While you might not agree such policies are appropriate,
@ they do exist and the registries are required to follow those
@ policies.  Such vetting takes significant technical knowledge and
@ time.  This is why registries have significant staff.
@ 
@ Regards,
@ -drc
@ 
@ 

For the record, I believe that someone stated that ARIN
will be modeled after APNIC and this is a benefit.

Can someone explain which aspects of APNIC will be copied by ARIN ?

Will the attitudes be copied ?

Will Mr. Conrad's prior statements about handling matters
the way they are handled in Singapore be copied ?

P.S. Mr. David Conrad runs APNIC. If MORE registries are
created, his market is reduced, and therefore his revenues.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

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