ARIN Comments

[Jim Fleming]

On Saturday, March 01, 1997 5:23 PM, Stephen Satchell[SMTP:satchell at accutek.com] wrote:
@ At 10:36 AM -0700 2/27/97, David R. Conrad wrote:
@ >
@ >And why use states as the delinating boundary?  Why should (say)
@ >Nevada have the same number of registries as (say) California?  Why
@ >not use a more fair distribution function based on number of service
@ >providers or population or number of telephones?
@ 
@ As a soon-to-be-ex Nevadan, I have to echo your comment about allocating an
@ /8 to the State.  While we may be the only state raped by Lincoln for its
@ land, the fact of the matter is that the current population could be
@ serviced quite easily by a single /16, regardless of what UNR and UNLV
@ think.
@ 
@ The proposal for a *single* registry for the Americas means that any
@ diaspora of numbers happens naturally, rather than having a shortage in one
@ place and an abundance in another. From purely a resource management
@ standpoint, splitting ARIN does *NOT* make sense.
@ 
@ It also doesn't makes monetary sense, either.
@ 

Thanks for the comments.

The proposal I have made does not require the blocks
allocated from the /8 to be routed in the State. Instead,
the registry would be paid "lease fees" from customers
that could be from anywhere.

Of course, if the State imposes extra restrictions
that would be their business, that is why I have suggested
that the delegation be done via the Senator and Govenor
so that some notion of "cyber land grant" is preserved.

The main point of the allocation is to spread the
economic benefits of registry operations around.
If the IPv4 IP address leasing market is allowed to
develop and rates are deregulated, then a multi-billion
dollar per year leasing industry can blossom.

The States may be willing to give away the routing
details of an IP block but not the lease rights to
use that block.


--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

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