ARIN Comments

[Jim Fleming]

On Wednesday, February 26, 1997 4:42 PM, Dennis Ferguson[SMTP:dennis at jnx.com] wrote:
@ >@ Well, if it *doesnt* have anything to do with it, why have one for
@ >@ each state? Why not on a per-timezone basis, or the way that minor-league
@ >@ baseball allocates sites for new teams (there must be two counties
@ >@ between each city that gets a team), or per phone system area code,
@ >@ or any *other* scheme?
@ >@ 
@ >
@ > It is political...have you closely followed the NSF proceedings
@ > and meeting notes...?....do you know their interests...?
@ >
@ > Do you know where the NSF get's their money...?
@ 
@ Do you know what the law constrains the NSF to spend their money for?  I
@ suspect IP address registry services, let alone domain name registrations,
@ no longer qualify.
@ 
@ Perhaps it would be better to be asking the ISPs who would be the primary
@ customers of an IP address registry whether they see an advantage in
@ having (and paying for) a choice of 50 of them instead of just one?
@ It seems to me that letting IP address registry customers choose what
@ they pay for is a better idea then trying to get the government to
@ force an outcome which the government (or the NSF, certainly) is not
@ allowed to pay for.
@ 

Thanks for your comments....
some would argue that the fund is not really the NSF's but they are the trustee....

		<http://rs.internic.net/announcements/iif-update.html>

The fund was set up for a specific purpose...

When the InterNIC was formed with IS, DS, and RS the idea was
to expand to more NICs. This quote from the mid-term evaluation
is very kind to the NSF.

	<http://www.rs.internic.net/nsf/review/review-toc.html>
	"The InterNIC awards set the precedent of requiring significant
	self-coordination among a team of awardees, and requiring outreach
	to other Network Information Centers. The panel suggests that the
	NSF critically consider whether it is viable to expect significant
	self-coordination among a team of awardees in future awards.
	The panel also notes that the NSF's program management was
	not able to correct GA's problems early on despite excellent efforts
	by the NSF staff, primarily because the NSF staff were overextended
	by monitoring at least two major projects (the InterNIC and the
	NSFNET backbone) at once. The panel recommends that for future
	large scale efforts in the rapidly changing Internet environment, the
	NSF should form an ongoing advisory panel of outside experts or
	employ some external consultants to help manage such cooperative
	agreements, rather than waiting two years to call for a review."

The NSF now has a debt to pay and a fund to do it...

This is a matter of ethics not law...



--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

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