[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@merit.edu" <nanog@MERIT.EDU> .Subject: Re: ARIN is A Good Thing .From: Paul A Vixie <paul@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@ACES.COM> .Sender: owner-nanog@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