At 11:10 AM 5/19/95 MST, peter(a)swan.lanl.gov wrote:
>
>> What's being asked for here is what a lot of businesses might consider
>> proprietary or trade secret type information. There are few secrets on the
>> Internet, we all know, once the network is in place, but plans for expansion
>> and new business ought to be confidential until the day the circuit is
>> turned on.
>
>It is the case that several regulatory agencies ask for similar information
>when an organization requests allocation of spectrum. For example,
>in the US the FCC asks for an "independent" engineering review for several
>classes of spectrum allocation.
>
>peter
Hate to argue with someone named after the Saint :). One of the things I've
learned over the years is that just because someone else does something
doesn't make it right. So far, we're not a regulated industry, and I think
most of us wish to keep it that way. So comparisons to regulated industries
aren't, IMHO, a great thing because someone might get the idea that we want
to be regulated. One of our recent US Presidents said something like this:
"If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something,
tax it; and if you want to kill it, regulate it." Let us not ask, or
suggest that we're asking, for something we don't want.
The internet community is a vital, vibrant collection of some of the
brightest, most thoughtful people in the world. Sure we have disagreements
and problems, and sure there are some who don't follow the rules that we've
agreed to live by. Peer pressure is clearly the way to deal with those
problem folks. One of the beauties of the way that we do things now is that
we try something for a while, and if it doesn't work, we change it. That's
a luxury we could well lose if IP addr's, etc., are dealt out by government
bureaucrats who might also be dealing out license plates at the same time
(seems like you get everything else at the Secretary of State office here in
Michigan :) ). I much prefer to deal with members of the internet community.
That said, when you're dealing with a limited resource, sale of that
resource is clearly the best way to see it allocated correctly because most
people won't buy more than they need. And I suggest that CIDR blocks might
actually be more valuable than the component addresses they contain, because
of the benefits a CIDR block gives its owner (one might actually make a
living from assembling and brokering CIDR blocks, I suppose). So when
someone switched providers, it might well be in the provider's best interest
to buy back the addresses to preserve the value of the block. That
repurchase could in part compensate the moving party for the expense of
renumbering.
I'm kind of thinking out loud here. I'd enjoy any constructive criticism
offered.
Peter
_____________________________________________________________________
Peter Kline | pots 313-730-1130
AGIS - Internet Backbone Services | fax 313-563-6119
22015 West Outer Drive | national pager 800-790-1216
Dearborn, MI 48124 |
peter(a)agis.net | "Adapt, Innovate, Overcome!"
