Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations

[Peter Veeck]

Robert T. Nelson wrote:

[snipped beginning of discussion to save space]

> 
> Absolutely agreed. Why don't you become a member of ARIN. I think you'd be
> well advised to take a good look at how ARIN can work for you.

I have some problems with the proposed organizational structure of ARIN
(http://www.arin.net/arin_proposal.html).

1.  "An annual membership fee of $1,000 (US) will be charged to all
entities joining ARIN.  Membership is open to any entity/individual
wishing to join, regardless of whether the entity/individual receives
address space directly from ARIN." 

This strikes me as a poll tax.  Pay $1000.00 and you can vote.  Donate
$50,000.00 and you can get your picture taken in the Whitehouse.  It may
be a necessary evil, but not one I can support.  I can understand the
need for funding but I support a user charge on IP addresses rather than
a membership fee.

2.  "Selection of the Board of Trustees: ... the initial Board of
Trustees will be selected by the individuals presently responsible for,
and consequently most knowledgeable of, the management of IP addresses
under the current arrangement." 

This is reasonable for to set up the incorporation paperwork and get to
a formation meeting. But:

	"... two expiring after the first year, two expiring after the second
year, and two expiring after the third year."

Strikes me as a bit more than enough time to do the paperwork.  I don't
really understand why a board can't be elected at the first
organizational meeting by the membership.

3.  Is it necessary for the members of the BoT or the Advisory Council
to be members of ARIN?  It is not stated.

4.  "The initial Advisory Council will be selected from among ARIN's
membership by the Board of Trustees." 

I see no reason that the Advisory Council cannot be elected at the first
organizational meeting.

5.  "The membership fee entitles the entity/individual to attend the two
ARIN membership meetings held each year ..."

When are these meetings?  Or more to the point when is the first
organizational one. 

6.  "... and to take advantage of other membership benefits to be
determined, such as the opportunity to nominate and elect members of
ARIN's Advisory Council. It is anticipated that, under this fee-based
framework, the membership will provide a focused, considered, and
responsible approach to addressing and solving the challenges facing the
Internets numeric addressing scheme."

This sounds like the argument made in Congress for pay raises.  "We need
to raise the pay to get more qualified members."  At election time I
don't remember any of the candidates claiming that they weren't
qualified.


ARIN is not a democratic or even a representative form of organization. 
To me it looks like "noblise oblige".

> I think that the fact of the matter here, is that memory space (IP
> addresses) in any programmable system is limited, and at a premium. It
> confuses the process if you have more than one entity assigning space in
> the Original Place. After that entity assigns space to functions
> (downstream registries in charge of how *they* allocate space) they can do
> with their space as they please.

Agreed, but the "one entity assigning space in the Original Place"
should be representative of the entirety.  i.e. software developers,
hardware manufacturers, end users, Corporate users, backbone providers,
educational institutions, local service providers, and any other
identifiable groups.

> Up till the present day, the Internet has been "under the care of" its
> original programmers. In order to have an orderly transition, those
> original people have to pass on their functions to a larger, but still
> limited group. That group can then, in turn, delegate some of those
> functions downstream. ARIN fulfills that function. NAIR could fulfil the
> role of downstream registry.

Yes, but the operating officers of ARIN are being taken from NSI.  NSI
has not shown a propensity for delegation or standardized procedures. 
Bill Manning reposted a message (I only include the top for reference):


Subject: Re: that observation.... (fwd)
  Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
  From: bmanning at ISI.EDU
    To: pagan at apnic.net, nair-founders at texoma.net

Hey You! (and the others, you should know who you are) Perhaps this
bit'o'wisdom might help.  (cleaning out the mail queue. sorry if you
have seen this before)

> Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: that observation....


The original post is dated last year yet it could have been written
today.  Is there reason to believe, with the same administrative staff,
that it will not be appropriate next year.

> In the DNS, CORE should fulfil that function, delegating responsibilities
> down to individual registries. Just as with IP space, I think that it
> would be quite possibly disasterous if we went from 1 provider to a
> completely open field operating the root zone.

It would probably be better to add servers with new administrators for
new TLDs rather than change the existing operators.   

> In general, people operating networks are not necessarily qualified to do
> so, and thus would have problems keeping up with developments - this is
> relatively new on the net to have such a proliferation of such networks.

Rapid growth can be as debilitating if not more so than no growth.  Look
at what has happened to some of the most popular software companies
(Borland, Lotus, Word Perfect).  I know several small business that are
not here now because they didn't get their business procedures and
accounting in place before the flood hit.

> I would prefer that we, as a community, delegate that responsibility to a
> group of entities who, collectively, have shown expertise and committment
> to development of DNS.  POC and CORE should meet those criteria, just as
> ARIN meets that criteria for IP Space allocations. Don't get me wrong. I
> can certainly see room for improvement in either process. I don't,
> however. think that the proper way to improve the situation is to derail
> the process.
>
> If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry.
> If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry.

These things are equivalent to governance, I don't want to govern--only
to be represented.  I have not given up on the present structure, I only
want to see it modified to be representative.  If I ask a question of my
(supposed) representative, it is for my enlightenment and I do not
expect to be snubbed.

> > They say that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of
> > government.  How do you ensure that the dictator is benevolent?

I can answer this.  A dictator that does not exist is very benevolent.

> Jefferson said that you need a revolution, regardless, every 70 years.
> That's 10 years in Internet Time. My bet is that Internet Time will speed
> up. We better get planning.

If we can modify the present system to accommodate the growth and new
participants, it might not come to this.  Just about anything can be
done with the proper algorithms.  Additionally, there are usually
multiple ways to solve a problem.

The sad thing with revolutions is that many proceed like bankruptcies. 
The management that bankrupts the company in the first place is the
management entrusted to bring it out.  Management gets a pay raise;
employees loose retirement, benefits, and pay.  How many companies do
you know of that were bankrupt by hourly workers?

Pete
RegionalWeb.Texoma.net