US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.

[Karl Auerbach]

> > > Well, you are simply wrong about this. ARIN is not the sole source. If any
> > > organization is the sole source of IPv4 addresses that can be used on the
> > > global public Internet, it is IANA. IANA normally delegates the job of
> > > allocating IP addresses to other registries although it does sometimes
> > > allocate addresses directly. There are currently three such registries.
> > 
> > Ok, so there is an agreement among the registries to divide the "market" 
> > into geographic areas.  And in each geographic area there is but one place
> > where one can go to get an address block. 
> 
> It's not a market. In any geographic area there are hundreds of places
> that you can go to get an IP address block.

If an ISP needs to get more address to satisify a customer request and
if its higher ISP (if any) is unwilling or unable to satisfy that
request, then that ISP has exactly one place to go: ARIN.

And if a business wants its own block, then there is one place to go:
ARIN.

So I count one place: ARIN.

There could have been others, but they have all agreed among
themselves to carve the world up into exclusive zones in which each
will have the sole and exclusive right to allocate address blocks.

Perhaps we just ought to drop the geographic limitations and let the
three registries allocate anywhere in the world.

> > > ... The contract they have with Network Solutions Inc. will
> > > expire in 1998 and it will not be renewed.
> > 
> > I wish I could be so sure... who in NSF or otherwise in a position to make
> > this happen has said that there will be no renewall?
> 
> There was a meeting of the Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee
> last October at which this was discussed.

Here's what they took as an action item:

	"The FNCAC reiterates and underscores the urgency of transferring
	responsibility for supporting U.S. commercial interests in ITLD
	administration from the NSF to an appropriate entity."

That's not a clear cut statement that NSI's domain name admin contract
won't be renewed.


> > In other words, why should one pay ARIN money to obtain a block of numbers
> > which might turn out to be useless?
> 
> ARIN is not exchanging blocks of IP addresses for money. ARIN *IS*
> carrying out a critical infrastructure role and that role costs money.

I'm not questioning that this costs money or that it is an important job.

It seems odd that the quality of the service provided by ARIN will be
rather lacking in a rather important attribute -- that of a guarantee
that the addresses will be usable.

It does seem that the ISPs who compose the membership of ARIN ought to be
in a good position to let ARIN make such a gurantee.


> Me too. And I'm keeping the DoJ audience in mind as I write my replies
> because they can't be expected to be familiar with the background of this
> whole issue. Quite frankly, if the AOP hadn't flown off the handle and
> started issuing misleading press releases and press interviews, this whole
> thing would not be an issue. It was the AOP that got everyone believing
> that there was to be some sort of new outrageously high fee for all IP
> addresses when this is simply not true at all. And even the proposals on
> the ARIN website are only proposals. They could be changed beyond
> recognition by the time that the prospective members of ARIN actually
> start signing up.

No doubt that there has been a lot of hyperbole.  I'm in agreement
with you that ARIN will almost certainly be a valuable, well run,
organization that serves us all.  Some of the original concerns about
costs were probably caused by unfortunate and inadvertant failure to
put into the initial drafts a few words that would have allayed the
fears of those who have seen NSI in action in the domain name area.

One of the most compelling of the demonstrations about fee projections
was when someone posted an analysis saying "had we been charging,
here's what the revenue would have been last year".  It was a very
reasonable amount and it certainly put my fears to rest.

(By-the-way, there were serious questions that arose well before AOP
started its efforts.)


> > An "international organization" is not immune from national laws.
> > 
> > Shell Oil may be an "international organization" but that doesn't block
> > national jurisdiction. 
> 
> ARIN is more like the ITU-T than like Shell Oil in that ARIN is not a
> profit-making corporation but is a non-profit industry consortium.

There is going to have to be a legally cognizable form for ARIN -- it
can't just be a bunch of individuals.  If it wants tax protection for
the fees, it's going to have to jump through a lot of legal hoops.
And if the members want limitations on their individual liability,
ARIN is going to have to jump through more hoops.

		--karl--