Comments on ARIN proposal

[Paul Ferguson]

Jay,

One issue which you may not be aware of, is that the allocation-based
fees only apply to organizations which obtain their IP address allocations
directly from ARIN; as per RFC2050, organizations should always be obtaining
their addresses from their upstream provider(s) & will be virtually unaffected
by this proposal.

- paul

At 08:21 AM 1/21/97 -0500, Jay Vassos-Libove wrote:

>To those responsible for the final design of ARIN -
>
>I am the network manager for a private company with a connection to the
>Internet, as well as a user of the Internet/NSF Net/ARPAnet for over a
>decade.
>
>Only recently did I become aware of the ARIN proposal.
>
>I strongly favor moving control over both Numbering and Domain Naming in
>to the hands of a by-the-network, of-the-network, and for-the-network
>non-profit corporation.
>
>However, the fee structure in the ARIN proposal at http://www.arin.net/
>disturbs me.  An annual membership fee of $1000 will eliminate most
>interested parties except for medium to large businesses (whether or not
>they be Internet Service Providers) and "Political Action Committees" (so
>to speak).
>
>I fear that this will result in poor representation for the small
>entrepeneur, to whom the Internet has heretofore been such a boon, and to
>the individual interest party (such as myself) with a historical and/or
>personal interest in the welfare of the Internet.
>
>Please consider annual membership fees based on tiers, or classified by
>the status (individual, small business, small ISP, medium sized business,
>medium sized ISP, etc) of the interested party, to accomodate interested
>individuals (such as myself) and small businesses who may be impacted by
>ARIN's policies and actions, and maintain a one-member-one-vote policy, so
>that money and size do not result in the usual "money has influence"
>politics which so far have been avoided on the Internet.
>
>Sincerely
>Jay Vassos-Libove
>libove at felines.org
>