ARINANOG

[Jim Fleming]

[1] As a reminder, there is an ARIN mailing list available from
	http://www.arin.net.

[2] I hope that this NANOG discussion gets reflected on the ARIN
	mailing list because some people may be following that
	list and may falsely conclude that the "Internet community"
	supports ARIN with "broad consensus" when in fact they
	have not really seen the discussions about ARIN which
	are held on other lists, in other meetings, in Hong Kong, etc.

[3] The reasons for creating ARIN have nothing to do with the words
	reflected in the ARIN proposal. This nonsense about DNS
	funding IP and vice versa are not the core issues any more
	than an ISP debating how dial-up subsidizes leased lines
	or vice versa.

[4] If ARIN is such a great idea why don't the proposed founders
	quit their comfortable jobs, give up their benefits and
	U.S. Government funding and start ARIN ? That is what
	other people do when they want to start a business.
	Before doing that, why don't the founders get ISPs to
	sign subscription agreements agreeing to fund the
	enterprise and therefore money will not be an issue
	because the companies that sign up will fund the
	effort. In fact, some of the people on NANOG claim that
	people are always throwing money at them. Why don't
	those people step forward to bank-roll ARIN ?

[5] Once ARIN is launched, why doesn't ARIN petition the
	NSF/InterNIC/IANA for a /8 to manage ? Given that
	some people think that ARIN is such a great idea,
	this should not take long, especially if the "right"
	people are on the ARIN board of directors.

[6] If NANOG members think that ARIN is such a great idea
	why not just pull the activity into NANOG and call
	the thing ARINANOG and get on with it ?


@@@@ http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02405.html

Re: ARIN is A Good Thing

------------------------------------------------------------------------
.To: "nanog at merit.edu" <nanog at MERIT.EDU>
.Subject: Re: ARIN is A Good Thing
.From: Paul A Vixie <paul at vix.com>
.Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 07:54:54 -0800
.In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 29 Mar 1997 02:11:16 MST." <01IH23Y6AYGG8WW0FK at ACES.COM>
.Sender: owner-nanog at MERIT.EDU 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ehud wrote:

> With no offense to Internic, IANA, Jon, or Jbb.  If I have to pay the
> Internic (and I do) [1] and they can also support IP (and they do) [2]
> and come out $60M black (they do!) then they can damn well fund their [3]
> own damn program to assign the [4] goddamned addresses without billing me.

I added the [#] notations above so I could comment in detail.  [1] you do
not have to pay the InterNIC -- there's always .US, and once IAHC's proposal
gets going, you will be able to select among other alternatives as well (and
my expectation is that .COM et al will become a shared gTLD in 1998).  [2]
you're right that they support IP, but remember the golden rule: whoever has
the gold makes the rules.  Leaving InterNIC to support this means that they
(InterNIC rather than Kim personally or any ISP) get to decide _how_ they
support it.  They don't presently have to do anything you agree with.  [3] 
it's not their program, it was NSF's program most recently, and believe me
when I tell you that you don't WANT it to be "InterNIC's program".  Finally,
[4] to assign is to assert some form of ownership.  I'd much rather see the
ISP's, with Kim continuing as coordinator reporting a board of ISP "regents",
assign and therefore assert ownership of, the address pool.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


As for the rest of the Registry Industry, there is a lot
of work still to be done. As companies develop Internet
Infrastructure and Registry Industry Infrastructure some
of them will become likely candidates to take over parts
of the IPv4 address space for management purposes.
This will help to spread some of the administrative costs
around and will ensure more fair and equitable policies.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
http://www.Unir.Corp

Check out...http://Register.A.Mall