RE $50 Million NSF windfall??

[Jim Fleming]

On Thursday, March 13, 1997 8:41 PM, Dennis Ferguson[SMTP:dennis at jnx.com] wrote:
@ > The Canadian situation has been hard to track. Canada appeared
@ > to be on the road to building Internet infrastructure but then
@ > turned back several months ago when it closed its IP Adddress
@ > Allocation facility. It is too bad that this set back occurred.
@ 
@ I supervised the group where this function was done in its initial
@ stages and I think the experience was actually a good lesson about
@ the problems of trying to distribute the task of IP address
@ allocation too thinly.  IP address allocation, like similar functions
@ (the North American Numbering Plan, and perhaps radio spectrum allocation,
@ come to mind) is better done centrally since by nature it is a
@ relatively low volume activity but requires a fairly high level of
@ technical effort to coordinate.  Canada, being only 1/10th the size
@ of the US and even a smaller fraction of the size of Europe and Asia,
@ was perhaps the best experience we've had in understanding how IP
@ address allocation benefits from the economies of scale of
@ centralization.
@ 

Should RIPE and APNIC be pulled back to the U.S. ?

@ I am sorry you have been unable to track this, I know the benefit
@ of experience is hard to acquire from mailing lists and web pages.
@ Since you lack IP address allocation experience yourself it is perhaps
@ less clear to you why centralization of this particular function serves to
@ optimize the service.
@ 

:-)

@ I do notice that you've confused `building Internet infrastructure'
@ with IP address allocation, however, so maybe I can help you clear
@ this up.  Building Internet infrastructure is something that many
@ companies and organizations do, even in Canada, and is indeed an activity
@ of fundamental economic importance, often requiring large investments, which
@ must be encouraged, stimulated and provided the support necessary to
@ maximize successes.  Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the
@ other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all (all the integers
@ we can use have already been built), their only function is to provide
@ a service (only one of many required) in support of those organizations
@ which do build the infrastructure.
@ 

Confused "building Internet infrastructure"...?
above you state...
	"Organizations which allocate IP addresses, on the
	other hand, do not build Internet infrastructure at all
	(all the integers we can use have already been built),"
This appears to imply that building infrastructure for
you means building integers and you claim above that
many companies are building Internet infrastructure...
"even in Canada"...yet all integers have been built...

below you state...
	"The activity which is important here is building Internet
	infrastructure."
and then you go on to make comments about the total
cost of constructing a really large Internet and point out
that "IP address allocation is not a large task"

In summary...you seem to be saying
	Many companies build Internet Infrastrusture...
		and it is an important task...
	Organizations that alllocate IPs perform a
		small simple task and are not part
		of building Internet Infrastructure...
	All integers have been built (whatever that means)...
		therefore no infrastructure needs to be built...
		yet many companies are doing it and it is
		important...

And you are claiming I am confused...?
	

@ This may be hard to understand, but the distinction is important.  You
@ need to look at the big picture. The activity which is important here
@ is building Internet infrastructure.  The cost of IP address allocation
@ is, or should be, just minor overhead in terms of the total cost of
@ constructing a really large Internet, both locally and world wide.  But
@ while IP address allocation is not a large task in the scheme of things
@ it is extremely important that the task be performed very well, since the
@ ultimate size to which we can grow the Internet, and reap the benefits
@ from having a very large Internet, are highly dependent on the skill with
@ which this small service is performed.
@ 
@ In other words, the economic benefit to the U.S. of having just one very
@ skilled IP address allocation registry located on a beach in Tobago will
@ far exceed that of having 100 address registries in the 100 largest U.S.
@ cities, none of which are very good since they can't get enough practice.
@ I think that many government people who understand the bigger picture, as
@ well as infrastructure builders who need this service performed, know this
@ very well, which is why many see central allocation under the control of
@ the infrastructure builders who depend on the function as being optimally
@ good for the industry.
@ 

I am suggesting 10 registries to start not 100...

@ > Please do not point to some RFC. Some U.S. Government
@ > people would not know an RFC from the IRS if it walked
@ > up and said hello.
@ 
@ This is true.  But this is why many U.S. Government people turn to those
@ who do have experience, and who do understand, to help them find the best
@ path to follow.  I think this has happened in this case.
@ 

Who would those U.S. Government people be...?

Who are the experienced people they have turned to...?

Also, are you saying that the Canadian Government has
no interest in being involved in this aspect of the Registry
Industry ?

@ Dennis Ferguson
@ 
@ P.S. I never did see your answer to this question:
@ 

I answered it and I will answer it again...

@ >Message-Id: <v02140b06af3eaff4490f@[192.52.71.233]>
@ >Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 23:27:08 -0500
@ >To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming at unety.net>
@ >From: John Curran <jcurran at BBNPLANET.COM>
@ >Subject: RE: ARIN Comments
@ >Cc: "'naipr at arin.net'" <naipr at arin.net>
@ >
@ >At 19:32 3/1/97, Jim Fleming wrote:
@ >
@ >>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.
@ >
@ >Now this makes sense...   your goal is to create a 
@ >multi-billion dollar registry industry, and mine is
@ >to ensure operational stability and transition of a 
@ >key function from a for-profit to an industry-led
@ >non-profit association that recognizes stewardship
@ >responsibilities for address space and consequential
@ >routing resources.
@ >
@ >Are you certain that there is not a sufficiently large
@ >marketplace being formed for DNS registries already such 
@ >that your goal can be attained without also restructuring
@ >for multiple commercial IP registries for the americas?
@ >
@ >/John
@ 
@ 

Answer: I am certain that where there are business
opportunities properly educated business people will
recognize these opportunities and will not throttle
themselves just because they think some aspect of
the industry is "sufficiently large".

The question basically sounds like someone saying,
"haven't the DNS pirates stolen enough? Do you really
have to steal our small out of the way IP Address
Allocation business ?"....please leave us alone...

If that is what was intended then I would point out
that business people do not feel like they are stealing
anything. The U.S. taxpayers funded many of the
Internet developments and without commercial
additions such as C, UNIX, DOS, Windows, modems,
T1s, LANs, integrated circuits, disk drives, video displays
and graphics adapters, the Internet would not exist.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

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