Re: Should NSF declare victory and leave?
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com> Of course, I argues vehemently against the $10k/year CIX "tax", and this would be a "tax" of sorts.
Perhaps there's a better forum than the nanog list for discussion of this - perhaps a BOF at the next NANOG meeting would be better.
Sorry, Avi, but I disagree. This is about group operations, and this _is_ the operations group! At least the discussion need to start and end here, so that everyone knowns what is going on. Although, technical details discussion could be a new separate list. Anyway, I'd be very happy if Daniel could help us figure out a way to be self-sustaining. If the CIX wanted to offer a RIPE-style of services, I'd be interested in participating! I think that the CIX bylaws and member agreement would need a few changes, but other than that, it seems positioned to take the role. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Anyway, I'd be very happy if Daniel could help us figure out a way to be self-sustaining. If the CIX wanted to offer a RIPE-style of services, I'd be interested in participating!
I think that the CIX bylaws and member agreement would need a few changes, but other than that, it seems positioned to take the role.
What about the ISP/C bylaws and member agreement? The ISP/C doesn't have some of the historical baggage that CIX has and is fairly open to what its members want to do. If most everybody on this list joined the ISP/C I suspect that it would happen. On the other hand there is something to be said for having this function in an entity separate from any trade association... Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Hi,
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Anyway, I'd be very happy if Daniel could help us figure out a way to be self-sustaining.
That's easy: both APNIC and RIPE-NCC are self-sustaining, funded by their membership who, by becoming members, gain a say in how the registries are run (taxation, yes, since somebody has to pay to keep the registries running, but with representation).
If the CIX wanted to offer a RIPE-style of services, I'd be interested in participating!
CIX? They claim to be an *international* Internet service provider trade association. As a home for the North American registry, this has the following negatives: - forces CIX to provide a particular set of services to North American members that CIX members from other regions would not be able to take advantage of - as a trade organization, the CIX may take positions that a particular member may not agree with (although the vast majority of members do agree). As such, I personally do not think the CIX would be an appropriate venue.
What about the ISP/C bylaws and member agreement? The ISP/C doesn't have some of the historical baggage that CIX has and is fairly open to what its members want to do.
My understanding is that ISP/C is also a trade association. Since regional registries are monopolies, they must be *completely* neutral with respect to their membership. A trade association traditionally takes positions for or against particular issues and as such, can be seen to be non-neutral.
If most everybody on this list joined the ISP/C I suspect that it would happen.
Perhaps I'm confused -- the community most affected by NSF taking the "Brave Sir Robin" approach ("run away!" :-)) is the community who received the mail you just sent. Why should they join ISP/C? Why not simply use NANOG?
On the other hand there is something to be said for having this function in an entity separate from any trade association...
Yes, in fact I'd argue that the registry _cannot_ be a part of a trade association due to concerns regarding conflict of interest and bias. In any event, I would imagine a reasonable course of action would be along the lines of: a) The IP address registry portion of NSI is moved to an independent business unit that is intended to be entirely self-sufficient (no cross subsidization by the DNS side of NSI!). NSI could act as a funding backstop while the Americas Address Registry establishes its funding base (trust me: after my experiences setting up APNIC, I'd say a funding backstop is *really* necessary). b) The AAR incorporates itself, preferably someplace not as lawyer happy as the US and which can provide some relief from taxation. c) The AAR institutes a funding plan based on the RIPE-NCC or APNIC funding plans (with whatever modifications are necessary to correspond to the different Internet environment in the Americas) with the understanding that the initial funding plan is a bootstrap mechanism that can be modified at the first AAR meeting. d) Organizations which become members of the AAR by paying the appropriate fees then meet and agree on necessary modifications to the funding plan, registry operational issues, etc. For anyone interested, APNIC was set up in this fashion -- we are incorporated in the Seychelles and are fully funded by our membership. You can find the APNIC By-Laws at ftp://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/apnic-037.txt and the APNIC Membership agreement at .../apnic-040.txt. Regards, -drc
participants (3)
-
David R. Conrad -
Michael Dillon -
William Allen Simpson