From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
Date: 4/13/98 7:22am
Subject: The ARIN Nation

On Sunday, April 12, 1998 8:10 PM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote:
@On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
@
@> I also had
@> and have serious problems with Postel's handling of damn near everything he
@> has touched in the last three years, and believe that his board membership
@> in ARIN is a monstrous conflict of interest.
@
@He is a non-voting ex-officio member of the BoT in his capacity as
@Director of IANA. Since ARIN basically allocates resources that are
@delegated to it by IANA, this doesn't appear to me to be a conflict of
@interest.
@

Michael,

As a Canadian, you might not be aware of the lengths that people go
to in the United States to make sure that things in government are
handled properly. Since it has finally been established that the IANA
(aka Jon Postel) works for the U.S. Government the rules apply to him
more than the average person. Since ARIN was founded via U.S. Government
funding and via the National Science Foundation it is subject to the same
rules.

In the past you have been an advocate of removing the boundaries of
the U.S. and blurring the geo-political differences. At one point you moved
from Canada to the U.S. to work and now appear to be back in Canada.

I am curious. When you move from one country to another do you flash
some sort of "Internet diplomatic passport" ? Does that make everyone
step out of the way to let you through ? Is there something that people
are missing here ? Do you wheel in and out of Washington D.C. like other
diplomats and park your car on the sidewalk and push everyone aside
as you dictate your new Internet diplomacy to them...and then disappear
as fast as you arrived ?

How does all this work ?

How do you speak with such authoriity (in other postings) about what
will happen in South America and Africa ? Where does the ARIN Nation
get off thinking they know anything about those regions ?

What about the Caribbean ? Did that escape your radar screen ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Antitrust List'" <antitrust@essential.org>

###

From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/13/98 9:42am
Subject: Re: ARIN Duplicates Other Government Functions

> Avi

>
> How does ARIN plan to have the resources to evaluate plans
> such as the WorldCOM - MCI merger ?
It looks like according to the current plans, smaller ISPs may be subsidizing
the evaluation of the allocations of larger ISPs.

> What background, skills, etc. do ARIN people have to handle
> the aquisition of BBN by GTE ?

They're probably 4 or 6 of the 10 most skilled people on the planet at
evaluating IP allocations.

What background, skills, etc. do you think they lack?

> What right does ARIN have to evaluate company's trade-secrets and
> furthermore, what protection do companies have that those trade-secrets
> are kept that way. If you recall, you, yourself were once caught passing
> comments behind the scenes to Kim Hubbard (now President of ARIN)
> on a small private mailing list that you inadvertently copied to others.
> If I recall, I think your response at the time was..."I guess I screwed up".

(1) The community has decided that someone has to evaluate past allocation
and future plans in order to allocate more of a precious resource (IP
space). That's the right that ARIN has.

(2) I don't recall what specific incident you're talking about, but you got
the direction wrong. Also, I'm not sure what's so sinister about passing
comments behind the scenes in a general sense.

If I passed info to Kim Hubbard rather than the other way around, how
could that possibly cast doubt on the integrity of the ARIN's trade-secret-
protection policies?

I have nothing to do with the ARIN operationally. The closest I came to
it was when I was asked if I knew a good tech that they could hire.

I know I've passed private e-mail from you to certain mailing lists when
I just couldn't take your insane rantings any more, and for that I've
already apologized.

> Where is all of this ARIN development headed ? Are people architecting
> a private company that will now duplicate the efforts of large governments
> in evaluating future plans of billion dollar companies and are people expected
> to sit around while information is passed on the Internet and then will ARIN
> finally pontificate a "ruling" with the result being that major companies live
> and die based on people like you who admit that you screwed up ?

To what efforts of large governments in evaluating future plans of billion
dollar companies are you referring?

> Please explain how you see all this working ?

In what way?

> Jim Fleming

Avi

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("JimFlemi...

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Avi Freedman'" <freedman@netaxs.com>
Date: 4/13/98 7:37am
Subject: ARIN Duplicates Other Government Functions

On Sunday, April 12, 1998 11:47 PM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman@netaxs.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@How are you going to verify allocations and future growth without
@evaluation confidential/proprietary/trade-secret info?
@

Avi

How does ARIN plan to have the resources to evaluate plans
such as the WorldCOM - MCI merger ?

What background, skills, etc. do ARIN people have to handle
the aquisition of BBN by GTE ?

What right does ARIN have to evaluate company's trade-secrets and
furthermore, what protection do companies have that those trade-secrets
are kept that way. If you recall, you, yourself were once caught passing
comments behind the scenes to Kim Hubbard (now President of ARIN)
on a small private mailing list that you inadvertently copied to others.
If I recall, I think your response at the time was..."I guess I screwed up".

Where is all of this ARIN development headed ? Are people architecting
a private company that will now duplicate the efforts of large governments
in evaluating future plans of billion dollar companies and are people expected
to sit around while information is passed on the Internet and then will ARIN
finally pontificate a "ruling" with the result being that major companies live
and die based on people like you who admit that you screwed up ?

Please explain how you see all this working ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "ahp@hilander.com" <ahp@hilander.com>

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/13/98 9:54am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

Jim and all,

Jim Fleming wrote:

> On Monday, April 13, 1998 7:40 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] wrote:
> <snip>
> @
> @ I would also wonder why the IANA hasn't stepped in (Jon Postel) long
> @before now and take some responsibility that the IANA is supposed to have
> @with Jon's direction. This too seems a bit puzzling as well. Any others
> @see this? Form private and ARIN list posts at the time, evidently they
> @do.
> @
>
> Jeff,
>
> Jon Postel is on the Board of ARIN. Why would he step in to stop himself ?
>

I see nor responsible reason why not. Unless there is something that is notwanted to
be known.

> Also, in the case of the @Home allocation, Paul Mockapetris left the
> University of Southern California Information Sciences Institure (USC/ISI)
> and joined @Home. In the same time frame @Home was delegated a huge
> amount of IPv4 address space directly from the IANA. @Home eventually
> made a public offering with a stock market valuation that was widely
> publicized because some people could not figure out where the value was.
> Evidently companies still do not show IP allocations on their books as
> assets, even though they can be worth billions of dollars.

I realize and remember this discussion with respect to @HOME.

>
>
> Paul Mockapetris did not stay at @Home very long. The IP addresses did.

Well, this is his privilage of course. However it does seem somewhat strange
on the sruface.

>
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI

Regards,

CC: Tony Rutkowski <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Avi Freedman'" <freedman@netaxs.com>
Date: 4/13/98 10:03am
Subject: RE: ARIN Duplicates Other Government Functions

On Monday, April 13, 1998 4:42 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman@netaxs.com] wrote:
@> Avi
@>
@> How does ARIN plan to have the resources to evaluate plans
@> such as the WorldCOM - MCI merger ?
@
@It looks like according to the current plans, smaller ISPs may be subsidizing
@the evaluation of the allocations of larger ISPs.
@

I do not believe that there is much evaluation done for the larger ISPs,
except maybe a review of their hospitality suite at a trade show. Since
there does not appear to be any public disclosure of what goes on at
ARIN or for that matter anything about the internal management structure
at ARIN, it is very difficult to tell what is really going on there. One can
only deduce what is going on based on what others disclose since most
people are not privy to the private e-mail exchanges between the members
of the ARIN nation.

It looks to me like we have a situation where large companies get a "pass"
or a free ride as long as they pay their money while small companies get
the third-degree from the "experienced staff" at ARIN. This all reminds me
of the customs and immigration scenes that I see traveling to and from the
U.S. to the Caribbean nations. A large group of white, vacation-clad tourists
walk through the lines with a nod and a smile from the experienced agents.
While this is going on, the black or brown, civilian-dressed citizen gets the
third degree from the new agents that are being trained to spot drug trafficing.

By the way, what statistics is ARIN keeping on how allocations are made
relative to sex, race, religion or national origin ?

Does ARIN measure up to U.S. Government standards in this area ?
Can we get a run down of these statistics for the employees, Board and
Advisory Committee of ARIN ?

Also, will ARIN be posting the allocations they make on a daily or weekly basis ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "ahp@hilander.com" <ahp@hilander.com>

###

From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/13/98 10:10am
Subject: Re: ARIN Duplicates Other Government Functions

> I do not believe that there is much evaluation done for the larger ISPs,
> except maybe a review of their hospitality suite at a trade show. Since
> there does not appear to be any public disclosure of what goes on at
> ARIN or for that matter anything about the internal management structure
> at ARIN, it is very difficult to tell what is really going on there. One can
> only deduce what is going on based on what others disclose since most
> people are not privy to the private e-mail exchanges between the members
> of the ARIN nation.

And how do you know this?
> It looks to me like we have a situation where large companies get a "pass"
> or a free ride as long as they pay their money while small companies get
> the third-degree from the "experienced staff" at ARIN. This all reminds me
> of the customs and immigration scenes that I see traveling to and from the
> U.S. to the Caribbean nations. A large group of white, vacation-clad tourists
> walk through the lines with a nod and a smile from the experienced agents.
> While this is going on, the black or brown, civilian-dressed citizen gets the
> third degree from the new agents that are being trained to spot drug trafficing.

And how do you know this?

> By the way, what statistics is ARIN keeping on how allocations are made
> relative to sex, race, religion or national origin ?

Don't ask me, but I would suspect none.

> Does ARIN measure up to U.S. Government standards in this area ?
>
> Can we get a run down of these statistics for the employees, Board and
> Advisory Committee of ARIN ?
>
> Also, will ARIN be posting the allocations they make on a daily or weekly
> basis ?

Karl has called for this.
I don't know what the response will be.

> Jim Fleming

Avi

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("JimFlemi...

###

From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/13/98 10:35am
Subject: Re: ARIN Duplicates Other Government Functions

> In the case about the ISPs, it is not hard to do an informal survey. As an
> example, can you provide us with a description about what the process was
> to obtain your last allocation ?

How is an informal survey going to tell you when the last time that MCI
was audited is?

Every allocation we've received so far has required at least 8 or 10 back-
and-forths with Kim or someone else to go over allocations. The only thing
I've ever objected to is the statement that static IP allocation will prevent
allocations. And for our first allocation, we hadn't SWIPped and had taken
2 or 3 years to use our first 32 /24s.

> How long did it take ?

About a week each time.

> What is your estimate of how long ARIN (or InterNIC) staff spent on it ?

At leat 4 hours each time, I think.

> What did it cost you and what do you estimate it cost them ?

Cost in SWIP-recording and time is probably 4 hours. My time is too
valuable to sell; I don't do consulting any more. Cost is subjective.
I have no idea what it cost them.

> As for the management structure of ARIN. It appears that there is a Board
> and an Advisory Committee, Kim Hubbard and the rest of the ARIN staff.
> http://www.arin.net/arinstaff.html
>
> Is there an org chart ?

Dunno.

> Does the rest of the staff have e-mail addresses ?

Probably.

> What is the reporting structure ?

Dunno.

> Where does Jon Postel fit into the day to day operations ?

My understanding is that he does not, though he used to clarify policy and
perhaps still does, though the AC is used for that role now, I believe.

> Jim Fleming

Avi

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("ahp@hila...

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Avi Freedman'" <freedman@netaxs.com>
Date: 4/13/98 10:16am
Subject: RE: ARIN Duplicates Other Government Functions

On Monday, April 13, 1998 5:10 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman@netaxs.com] wrote:
@> I do not believe that there is much evaluation done for the larger ISPs,
@> except maybe a review of their hospitality suite at a trade show. Since
@> there does not appear to be any public disclosure of what goes on at
@> ARIN or for that matter anything about the internal management structure
@> at ARIN, it is very difficult to tell what is really going on there. One can
@> only deduce what is going on based on what others disclose since most
@> people are not privy to the private e-mail exchanges between the members
@> of the ARIN nation.
@
@And how do you know this?
@

In the case about the ISPs, it is not hard to do an informal survey. As an example,
can you provide us with a description about what the process was to obtain your
last allocation ?

How long did it take ?
What is your estimate of how long ARIN (or InterNIC) staff spent on it ?
What did it cost you and what do you estimate it cost them ?

As for the management structure of ARIN. It appears that there is a Board
and an Advisory Committee, Kim Hubbard and the rest of the ARIN staff.
http://www.arin.net/arinstaff.html

Is there an org chart ?
Does the rest of the staff have e-mail addresses ?
What is the reporting structure ?
Where does Jon Postel fit into the day to day operations ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "ahp@hilander.com" <ahp@hilander.com>

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
Date: 4/13/98 10:43am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

Avi and all,

Avi Freedman wrote:

> > > Paul Mockapetris did not stay at @Home very long. The IP addresses did.
>
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
>
> O conspiracy theorist,
>
> Are you sure that Paul wasn't there for over a year?

O fact scoffer,

Are you sure that he was?

>
>
> Avi

Regards,

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("JimFlemi...

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 3/29/98 12:35pm
Subject: FW: Questions for ARIN's Board of Trustees

----------
From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 1998 11:34 AM
To: 'Doug Humphrey'; 'John Curran'; 'Michael Dillon'; 'Scott Bradner'
Cc: 'Tony Rutkowski'; 'Carl Oppedahl'; 'charles mueller'; 'dstein@travel-net.com'; 'KathrynKL'; 'lsundro@nsf.gov'; 'Eric Weisberg'
Subject: Questions for ARIN's Board of Trustees

1. Who currently controls the .ARPA Top Level Domain ?
(i.e. what servers does it run on ?)

2. Who currently controls the IN-ADDR.ARPA DNS zone ?
(i.e. Who can add/delete entries ?)

3. Is ARIN involved in either #1 or #2 ?

4. Where did ARIN get it's whois database of names and addresses ?

5. What /8 IP blocks does ARIN claim to manage ?

6. Where does ARIN get /8 IP address blocks ?

7. What does ARIN pay for those /8 address blocks ?

8. What is the value of IP addresses currently on ARIN's books ?

9. How many other companies compete with ARIN in the U.S. ?

10. How do other companies obtain the same advantages as ARIN ?

11. How does ARIN determine the prices it charges for addresses ?

12. Where is the open financial information that ARIN claimed it would provide ?

13. What IP blocks have been delegated by ARIN ?

14. How much have companies paid for these blocks ?

15. Are all of the payments in cash ? or is equipment and other compensation
taken as payment ?

-

Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'antitrust@usdoj.gov'" <antitrust@usdoj.gov>
Date: 4/13/98 3:26pm
Subject: FW: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

----------
From: Thomas Mullaney[SMTP:tpm@Jovian.Net]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 1998 9:47 AM
To: Jim Fleming
Cc: 'ARIN list'
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

I agree with this 100% Take ASN registrations or transfers. ARIN wants
$500 dollars to register an ASN, and $250.00 dollars to transfer an ASN to
another party. They also charge $250.00 dollars to transfer a netblock to
another party. We are not talking about anything technical here, we are
talking about changing the name on a ASN or Netblock from Some Company to
Some Other Company.

I just got an email that my registration for an ASN was going to be
canceled because I didnt pay the invoice within 30 days...I was "approved"
for an ASN around 15th of last month, but I had to call ARIN to get them
to fax me a copy of the invoice 2 weeks ago becuase I didnt receive it. I
got the original invoice 2 days later. What a scam.

ARIN...We want to know...what are you paying the people who work for you
to change a name on an ASN or netblock to have to charge us $250.00...or
even better why does it cost $500.00 dollars for something that used to be
free? What great amount of work do you have to do to charge that
much...Dont tell me it's because we are running out of ASN's! I can
understand charging "something" for IP's due to lack of numbers, but did
you guys sit around the card table playing poker and come up with your fee
schedule?

~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
Thomas Mullaney email: tpm@jovian.net
Jovian Networks voice: (978) 597-3118
61B Spaulding Street fax: (978) 597-6042
Townsend, MA 01469-1182 www: http://www.jovian.net/~tpm
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion. This
message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of Jovian
Networks. All responsibility for the statements made in this message
resides solely and completely with the sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Jim Fleming wrote:

> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 13:16:58 -0500
> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
> To: 'ARIN list' <naipr@arin.net>
> Subject: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off
>
>
>
> ----------
> From: Roger Marquis[SMTP:marquis@roble.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 1998 8:24 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off
>
> In antitrust@essential.org, John Howard Brown wrote:
> > Before I get flamed let me apologize for the intemperate use of the term
> > Spam, which Flemings contributions definitely are not. Nonetheless, the
> > point remains, isn't there some more appropriate forum for these discussions?
>
> I don't know about the technical stuff but the discussion of ARIN's
> unsupervised and largely undocumented rip-off of Internet addresses
> does belong on the antitrust list.
>
> As a first person example: we've been looking for a secondary ISP to
> serve our 2 class C subnets (500 addresses). We're forced to rely on
> larger ISP for those addresses because ARIN will not allocate address
> space to organizations needing fewer than 8,000 addresses. The fee for
> 8,000 IP addresses will cost a non-ISP a one time fee of $2,500. An
> ISP on the other hand must pay that $2,5000 _annually_. Of course ISPs
> are passing on these fees. We've been quoted up to $1,000 per class C
> (254 addresses)! These fees are definitely going to impact our
> Internet dependent business.
>
> Like Network Solutions ARIN is using underhanded tactics to set this
> fee structure and the fees are similarly way out of line with the cost
> of providing them. Network Solutions incurs a cost of $3 to $5 per
> domain name yet charges $50 (recently reduced to $35) per domain!
> ARIN's cost of providing reverse domain resolution (IP address ->
> hostname) is almost identical to the cost of providing forward
> resolution (i.e., $3-$5 per class C) yet they're charging nearly
> _1,000_ times that amount!
>
> ARIN is operating independently and virtually without government or
> public supervision or input. These people will get rich and there
> doesn't seem to be anything smaller shops like ours can do about it.
> Like Network Solutions (the current Internic) their fees are way out of
> line with their costs and, like the Internic, only the courts seem to
> be able to do anything about it. Along those lines is there any way a
> business like ours can participate in the current lawsuits against ARIN
> and Network Solutions?
>
> Network Solutions needed no authorization to split-off reverse IP
> resolution to ARIN (without cutting their fee in half) and both
> organization are splitting-off whois service and other IP/name domains
> wherever possible. How long will these robber barons of the Internet
> continue getting away with this?
>
> Roger Marquis
>
>
>
>
>

CC: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" <BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Avi Freedman'" <freedman@netaxs.com>
Date: 4/13/98 11:06am
Subject: RE: ARIN Duplicates Other Government Functions

On Monday, April 13, 1998 5:35 AM, Avi Freedman[SMTP:freedman@netaxs.com] wrote:
@
@> In the case about the ISPs, it is not hard to do an informal survey. As an
@> example, can you provide us with a description about what the process was
@> to obtain your last allocation ?
@
@How is an informal survey going to tell you when the last time that MCI
@was audited is?
@

I did not claim that an informal survey would disclose everything. I was mostly
responding to your question about why I think that large companies are given
a "pass" while small companies are given the third-degree.

If you go into the market and ask large companies how they get their IP
allocations from ARIN you will likely get a flip answer such as, "We have
no problem getting as much IP space as we need, we have an office in
Washington, D.C., near ARIN...need we say more...?"

Now, maybe this is just sales talk and bluster. Maybe this is used to
convince the end users that IP address space will not be a problem.
Without information coming from ARIN on a daily or weekly basis it
is hard to determine this. Without some accounting of exactly how
much time was spent with MCI and how much with new ISPs it is
hard to know.

In my opinion, this all starts with the problem that ARIN has a monopoly
granted by the U.S. Government on allocations for North America. In
the past I have suggest that at a minimum, each State have an agency
equivalent to ARIN.

Why do people think that one small private company in Washington, D.C.
should have the right to be a monopoly in this industry ?
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "ahp@hilander.com" <ahp@hilander.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Jeff Williams'" <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Date: 4/13/98 3:50pm
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

On Monday, April 13, 1998 7:40 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@ I would also wonder why the IANA hasn't stepped in (Jon Postel) long
@before now and take some responsibility that the IANA is supposed to have
@with Jon's direction. This too seems a bit puzzling as well. Any others
@see this? Form private and ARIN list posts at the time, evidently they
@do.
@

Jeff,

Jon Postel is on the Board of ARIN. Why would he step in to stop himself ?
Also, in the case of the @Home allocation, Paul Mockapetris left the
University of Southern California Information Sciences Institure (USC/ISI)
and joined @Home. In the same time frame @Home was delegated a huge
amount of IPv4 address space directly from the IANA. @Home eventually
made a public offering with a stock market valuation that was widely
publicized because some people could not figure out where the value was.
Evidently companies still do not show IP allocations on their books as
assets, even though they can be worth billions of dollars.

Paul Mockapetris did not stay at @Home very long. The IP addresses did.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: Tony Rutkowski <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
Date: 4/13/98 5:46pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

I interviewed Paul Mockapetris at the december 1996 IETF....at that point
he had left @home.... I think he was there more than a year. I have been
critical of Jon and at one point asked a bunch of questions about the @home
allocation. Based on the feedback I received from a number of parties i
believe that the allocation was absolutely legitimate.

Note: I will not answer any replies received from jim fleming. doing so is
not worth the trouble.

>> > Paul Mockapetris did not stay at @Home very long. The IP addresses did.

>
>> Jeffrey A. Williams
>
>O conspiracy theorist,
>
>Are you sure that Paul wasn't there for over a year?
>
>Avi

***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("JimFlemi...

###

From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 4/13/98 5:11pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

> > Paul Mockapetris did not stay at @Home very long. The IP addresses did.

> Jeffrey A. Williams

O conspiracy theorist,

Are you sure that Paul wasn't there for over a year?

Avi

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("JimFlemi...

###

From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 4/13/98 5:52pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

> > O conspiracy theorist,
> >
> > Are you sure that Paul wasn't there for over a year?
>
> O fact scoffer,
>
> Are you sure that he was?

I am pretty sure that he was but I wouldn't bet on it.

> Jeffrey A. Williams

Avi

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("JimFlemi...

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Dave Van Allen'" <dave@fast.net>
Date: 4/13/98 6:20pm
Subject: RE: IP-block fees and ARIN

On Monday, April 13, 1998 4:25 PM, Dave Van Allen[SMTP:dave@fast.net] wrote:
<snip>
@
@I have questioned the old NIC and ARIN's policies publicly and private for
@some time, and I am still convinced that ARIN can Do Good. I am a "proud
@member" of ARIN; one of the first, I think I have invoice 1002. I will still
@support the effort as I believe we must self-regulate this industry and ARIN
@is poised to do just that wrt IP space. BUT, I will not let them sneak
@anything past me, and I hope everyone here will give them the same length of
@rope - even it might eventually hang them.
@

Dave,

ARIN is not a done deal yet. It is part of the Green Paper process
that is being coordinated by the White House, the DOC and other
U.S. Government parties. There are many, many questions that still
have not been answered about ARIN. Since ARIN is tightly aligned
with the IANA and Jon Postel is on the "Board" of ARIN, the evolution
of the IANA Inc. being planned by the U.S. Government has to take
ARIN into account.

This is not a simple matter. If the U.S. Government does not focus on
ARIN and allows it to wander off to follow the path that RIPE has taken,
then there is no sense spending time on the IANA Inc. As you can see,
RIPE is now getting into the TLD business because they are probably
realizing that governance clean-up in IP allocations will reduce the revenue
streams for IP addresses. This would be a natural path for ARIN which
would be ironic because people "sold" ARIN on the basis that domain
names and IP addresses have nothing to do with each other when in
fact the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain is very important to ARIN.

In my opinion, the U.S. Government should use the current ARIN structure
to build the IANA Inc. This will save money and time and will make sure
that Jon Postel does not end up moving between ARIN, GAR and IANA Inc.
picking and choosing what rules or laws fit his needs from one moment to
the next. It will also help to avoid the unfortunate situation we have where
people (mostly Canadian) keep trying to dictate U.S. policies who are not
U.S. citizens or U.S. taxpayers.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Dave Van Allen'" <dave@fast.net>
Date: 4/13/98 6:20pm
Subject: RE: IP-block fees and ARIN

On Monday, April 13, 1998 4:25 PM, Dave Van Allen[SMTP:dave@fast.net] wrote:
<snip>
@
@I have questioned the old NIC and ARIN's policies publicly and private for
@some time, and I am still convinced that ARIN can Do Good. I am a "proud
@member" of ARIN; one of the first, I think I have invoice 1002. I will still
@support the effort as I believe we must self-regulate this industry and ARIN
@is poised to do just that wrt IP space. BUT, I will not let them sneak
@anything past me, and I hope everyone here will give them the same length of
@rope - even it might eventually hang them.
@

Dave,

ARIN is not a done deal yet. It is part of the Green Paper process
that is being coordinated by the White House, the DOC and other
U.S. Government parties. There are many, many questions that still
have not been answered about ARIN. Since ARIN is tightly aligned
with the IANA and Jon Postel is on the "Board" of ARIN, the evolution
of the IANA Inc. being planned by the U.S. Government has to take
ARIN into account.

This is not a simple matter. If the U.S. Government does not focus on
ARIN and allows it to wander off to follow the path that RIPE has taken,
then there is no sense spending time on the IANA Inc. As you can see,
RIPE is now getting into the TLD business because they are probably
realizing that governance clean-up in IP allocations will reduce the revenue
streams for IP addresses. This would be a natural path for ARIN which
would be ironic because people "sold" ARIN on the basis that domain
names and IP addresses have nothing to do with each other when in
fact the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain is very important to ARIN.

In my opinion, the U.S. Government should use the current ARIN structure
to build the IANA Inc. This will save money and time and will make sure
that Jon Postel does not end up moving between ARIN, GAR and IANA Inc.
picking and choosing what rules or laws fit his needs from one moment to
the next. It will also help to avoid the unfortunate situation we have where
people (mostly Canadian) keep trying to dictate U.S. policies who are not
U.S. citizens or U.S. taxpayers.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Tony Rutkowski'" <amr@chaos.com>

###

From: Cathy Wittbrodt <cjw@corp.home.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/13/98 6:39pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

Jim,

What do you know of @Home's address allocation or justification that was
given to get the block? A block that was allocated very close to 3 years
ago by the Internic. @Home has worked with the Internic/ARIN to develop
allocation guidelines for the entire cable block (24.0.0.0/8) that are
currently to date more stringent than the ones used for regular ISP
allocations. We work with all of our cable partners to achieve high levels
of address space utilization and to make extensive use of RFC1918 address
space.

And yes, Paul was at @Home for well over a year. It isn't clear to me why
that matters to folks, but he was around long after we got the allocation.

---CJ

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off
On Monday, April 13, 1998 7:40 AM, Jeff Williams[SMTP:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@ I would also wonder why the IANA hasn't stepped in (Jon Postel) long
@before now and take some responsibility that the IANA is supposed to have
@with Jon's direction. This too seems a bit puzzling as well. Any others
@see this? Form private and ARIN list posts at the time, evidently they
@do.
@

Jeff,

Jon Postel is on the Board of ARIN. Why would he step in to stop himself ?

Also, in the case of the @Home allocation, Paul Mockapetris left the
University of Southern California Information Sciences Institure (USC/ISI)
and joined @Home. In the same time frame @Home was delegated a huge
amount of IPv4 address space directly from the IANA. @Home eventually
made a public offering with a stock market valuation that was widely
publicized because some people could not figure out where the value was.
Evidently companies still do not show IP allocations on their books as
assets, even though they can be worth billions of dollars.

Paul Mockapetris did not stay at @Home very long. The IP addresses did.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'Jeff Williams'" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Marc Hurst <mhurst@fastlane.ca>
Date: 4/13/98 6:44pm
Subject: "ARIN has nothing to do with governments"

On Monday, April 13, 1998 10:27 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote:
@On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Marc Hurst wrote:
@
@> Could anybody comment exactly which Canadian body was responsible for
@> approving, or being involved with, ARIN.
@
@None at all. ARIN has nothing to do with governments.
@

Michael..here you go again...

Many people are familiar with the work that you did in helping
to push the IAHC and CORE agendas. During that time, you made
many statements which made experts sit back and say, "What ?"
"Who does he think he is kidding ?"

The above statement falls into this category...let's not even look
at the rest of your posting until we address this...

"ARIN has nothing to do with governments"

1. Are you aware that Jon Postel (aka IANA) is on the Board of ARIN ?

2. Are you aware that the White House and various U.S. Government
agencies are working on bringing Internet resource allocation into
a more formal structure BEFORE the InterNIC contract ends ?

3. Are you aware that the so-called IANA Inc. will involve Jon Postel
and the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone and ARPA TLD which apparently
ARIN controls.

4. Are you aware that U.S. taxpayers helped to fund ARIN ?

5. Are you aware that ARIN apparently obtained its whois contact
database from the InterNIC which was funded by U.S. taxpayers ?

6. Are you aware that U.S. taxpayers "allow" non-profit companies
like ARIN to exist in the U.S. ?

7. Are you aware that ARIN is subject to U.S. laws and the laws of
the State of Virginia ?

...and you sit in Canada and say ARIN has nothing to do with governments ?

Did you have to deal with the U.S. Government when you were working
for Priori in California ? If not, maybe the problem is that YOU have nothing
to do with governments and since you seem to think you are ARIN, you
draw the conclusion that ARIN also has nothing to do with governments.
Is that the case ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "'klensin@mci.net'" <'klensin@mci.net'>

###

From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
To: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
Date: 4/13/98 11:33pm
Subject: flame on: to those who'd destroy ARIN: GROW UP!!!! Re: IP-block fees and ARIN

Avi, you are displaying the patience of a saint for trying to communicate
with people as clewless as jeff williams and as malevolant as fleming.

Fleming's original gripe was that he felt screwed by an application he made
3 or 4 years ago to internic. He has said as much in his public answer to
NTIA before the march 23 comment dead line. He takes perceived insults and
builds them into fantasies and monstrous fabrications and i am sure that he
will have some cute and slanderous things to say about me. Frankly I don't
care. he has spread his filth for years and i guess part of the price we
pay for free speech is that he will spread it for more years to come....
the ONLY way to deal with him is to ignore him.

Karl is a different matter. but Karl, what in god's name do you think you
have to gain by your demand that Arin make its files public? Why should
someone who was tunred down be publically exposed as to the reason that
they were turned down? Doesn't that run the risk of giving their
competitors knowlege about them that they can use against them?

Avi, as you well know, ARIN does not run by a scientific formula so what
you will get will be something that hundreds of hours will have to be
expended on in order to make any sense..... Other tasks like improving
the software and clarifying the current procedures won't get done.

If what is being asked for is not the expenditure of arin member's money to
invade the privacy of other ISPs, i'd like to know why not.

I watched you Avi in the summer of 1995 when you requested an allocation
and Kim gave you the same hard time that she gives everyone. you didn't
like it and I think you were offended, but you didn't engage in character
assasination. you gave Kim a chance and I still remember your response more
than a year later. Never ever lie to Kim!

The destructive behavior of a small minority here is quite frankly
appalling. Suppose Kim's critics get their wish and they succeed in
driving her out. Do they have a clue what they will replace her with....
just the tinyest clue???

Destroy Arin. What are you left with? do you think the 20 largest
providers will have trouble getting numbers? sidgemore will see some how
that *HE* is taken care of. the BIG guys will survive. the four thousand
other ISPs don't understand how fortunate they are to have a membership
organization where their voice can be heard against the likes of UUNET and
MCI. Every ISP reading this which is not among the top 20 better stop and
think what they are doing. d estroy arin and YOU WILL NOT replace it with
something better because you will never be able to agree among yourselves
what to do. Give eveyone a prefix 19 and watch the big providers filter
everything greater than an 18.

If you want to know where the skeletons are burried take you beef (and
supeonas) to IANA and try to force IANA to document how it handles every
appeal. they are NOT documented.....other than a yes or a no...... THAT is
where the scandal is. ones ability to get routable address space ought
*NOT* to depend on ones ability to have one's attorney put the fear of god
into jon postel.
=========

>> > They don't; not that I'm aware of.

>> >
>> > I'm just shocked that you think that we would.
>>
>> Than why suggest such?
>
>I suggested nothing of the sort.
>
>> > I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect that to get the info Karl wanted, they'd
>> > have to go through all allocations for years by riffling by hand and eye
>> > through hundreds of mailbox-folders.
>>
>> Well that shouldn't take that much time.
>
>Again I must inquire whether you're for real.
>
>Each provider goes through 4 to 20 or more exchanges over each allocation.
>Hundred of providers, say 2 or 3 (I don't know the actual number) allocations
>per over 3 years.
>
>Weeks or months of (wo)man-time are required to gather the requested info.
>
>> > To human labor.
>>
>> SOnds like somebody is getting paid an awful lot than.
>
>Not to me...
>
>> Jeffrey A. Williams
>
>Avi
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("karl@MCS...

###

From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
To: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Date: 4/13/98 11:57pm
Subject: Re: flame on: to those who'd destroy ARIN: GROW UP!!!! Re: IP-block fees and ARIN

On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 11:33:23PM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> Avi, you are displaying the patience of a saint for trying to communicate
> with people as clewless as jeff williams and as malevolant as fleming.
....

> Karl is a different matter. but Karl, what in god's name do you think you
> have to gain by your demand that Arin make its files public? Why should
> someone who was tunred down be publically exposed as to the reason that
> they were turned down? Doesn't that run the risk of giving their
> competitors knowlege about them that they can use against them?

Simple - if there is gaming of the process going on, I and everyone else
gain in that we expose it, drive out the people responsible, and get an ARIN
which is truely responsible and RESPONSIVE.

I took the AC position because I believe that this is THE critical resource.
DNS is a sideshow by comparsion. Without an ABSOLUTELY fair process in
allocation of this CRITICAL resource, the little guy DOES get screwed.

The problem is, the little guy HAS gotten screwed. Its time to unscrew him.
Gordon, I have nothing at risk in this game any longer. I won't go into why
- but the bottom line is that I'm doing this BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING
TO DO and for NO OTHER REASON.

> If what is being asked for is not the expenditure of arin member's money to
> invade the privacy of other ISPs, i'd like to know why not.

I'd like to know how you invade the privacy of ISPs when they have no privacy
right when it comes to this process *at the level of ARIN's decision making*.

> The destructive behavior of a small minority here is quite frankly
> appalling. Suppose Kim's critics get their wish and they succeed in
> driving her out. Do they have a clue what they will replace her with....
> just the tinyest clue???
>
> Destroy Arin. What are you left with? do you think the 20 largest
> providers will have trouble getting numbers? sidgemore will see some how
> that *HE* is taken care of. the BIG guys will survive. the four thousand
> other ISPs don't understand how fortunate they are to have a membership
> organization where their voice can be heard against the likes of UUNET and
> MCI.

You're so full of it Gordon. Fear-mongering is your specialty, and you and
I both know it. Is someone paying you off Gordy?

> Destroy arin and YOU WILL NOT replace it with
> something better because you will never be able to agree among yourselves
> what to do.

This is why the DOJ *MUST* get involved in this.

> Give eveyone a prefix 19 and watch the big providers filter
> everything greater than an 18.

And then all 4,000 of us sue the pants off those nice providers. I'd love
to see Sidgemore named in a criminal RICO indictment.

> If you want to know where the skeletons are burried take you beef (and
> supeonas) to IANA and try to force IANA to document how it handles every
> appeal. they are NOT documented.....other than a yes or a no...... THAT is
> where the scandal is. ones ability to get routable address space ought
> *NOT* to depend on ones ability to have one's attorney put the fear of god
> into jon postel.

Oh, that'll happen Gordy.

But the incest between the IANA and ARIN means that ARIN is the place to
start. Either we fix ARIN, or it falls. Those are the choices. The reason
I'm involved is that the best place to fix something is from the INSIDE.

CC: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Date: 4/14/98 1:17am
Subject: ARIN's History

On Monday, April 13, 1998 10:57 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@MCS.NET] wrote:
@On Mon, Apr 13, 1998 at 11:33:23PM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
<snip>
@
@> The destructive behavior of a small minority here is quite frankly
@> appalling. Suppose Kim's critics get their wish and they succeed in
@> driving her out. Do they have a clue what they will replace her with....
@> just the tinyest clue???
@>

Gordon,

In 1997 you ran back and forth reporting all sorts of inaccurate
information about the way the U.S. Government was making a
big mistake in putting ARIN on hold. Anyone close to the situation
knew that the creation of ARIN was being driven by SAIC and NSI.
They wanted to divest themselves of the IANA-related bad PR and
the hot potatoes that would prevent NSI from making a smooth
transition to the WorldNIC. <http://www.worldnic.net>

As you can now see, the creation of ARIN has not really solved
anything. The IANA (aka Jon Postel) is still a wildcard for the U.S.
Government. Now the U.S. Government has to somehow deal with
the complex task of commercializing the IANA while also dealing
with ARIN which was allowed to proceed in a pre-mature, 12th hour
decision that you applauded as the salvation of the Internet.

Now that ARIN is created, why not use it ? Why not bring the IANA
and Jon Postel to a more visible role in ARIN ? There are now plenty
of people involved with ARIN and Kim Hubbard is the President. How
could you find a better opportunity ? Why not seize the moment and
use the ARIN platform to efficiently manage the Internet ? Isn't this
what you campaigned for last year ? Are you having second thoughts ?

-

Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "antitrust@usdoj.gov" <antitrust@usdoj.gov>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Date: 4/14/98 2:04am
Subject: The Risks of Dealing With ARIN

On Monday, April 13, 1998 10:57 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@MCS.NET] wrote:
<snip>
@
@> Karl is a different matter. but Karl, what in god's name do you think you
@> have to gain by your demand that Arin make its files public? Why should
@> someone who was tunred down be publically exposed as to the reason that
@> they were turned down? Doesn't that run the risk of giving their
@> competitors knowlege about them that they can use against them?
@

Gordon,

What is worse being turned down and having the public see that which
might cause the public to rally around someone's cause to help reverse ARIN's
decision ?...

...or...having an ARIN agent calling the clients of the ISP and talking behind
the ISP's back to get in the middle of the "deal" that is being negotiated to
make sure that the "right" ISP gets the IP resources...?

In other words...let's imagine that Company X (not an ISP) is out searching
for an ISP to help provide some large-scale Internet services. Let's imagine
that it is a large enough project that IP allocations will be required. Let's also
imagine that three ISPs are bidding for the work. Let's call them Small,
Medium and Large. In each case the ISPs bring a different set of assets
and liabilities to the table, trying to win the contract. Unfortunately, in ALL
of the cases, ARIN becomes a central agent that can track the deal and the
ISPs...there is nothing to stop ARIN agents from sticking their CIA-like
noses into the deal to make sure they understand it...this can nix the deal
for the Small and sometimes Medium ISP. Why ? Because it is too easy
for the ARIN agents to show their bias toward the large ISPs with the
customer.

As a small example, an ARIN agent can tell the customer that if the
Small ISP gets the contract they "might" get the IP addresses IF they
have the ability to justify them. The ARIN agents can also comment that
if the Large ISP gets the contract then they already have a large block.
This uncertainty communicated by the ARIN agents can nix the deal for
the Small ISP.

One of the major problems with a single-supplier like ARIN is that the
ISPs can give the customer a "spin" about their relationship with ARIN
and use that against each other. In a multi-supplier situation all of the
parties would not have 99% of the information. The distributed information
would keep everyone off-balance in a normal situation. This actually keeps
the playing field MORE level.

This is why there should be dozens of ARINs and in my opinion the best
place to put them is in TLD registries. This is like suggesting that banks
handle auto license plates. Even though the bank may not know much
about cars, they have the infrastructure to do the administration. A stable
infrastructure is important. ARIN can only obtain that by charging high fees.
This is not necessary.

RIPE is learning that trying to live off of only IP sales is not viable. They
are rapidly expanding to include the TLD registries (see RIPE CENTR).
ARIN should study that evolution closely. Other TLD registries should also
consider adding the IP management functions. It seems inevitable that
these registries will be called up to help. One might as well be prepared.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "antitrust@usdoj.gov" <antitrust@usdoj.gov>

###

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 3:31am
Subject: Re: The Risks of Dealing With ARIN

Jim,

I agree with everything you say here, except one previso. I'm on the DNS
list, arguing for multiple TLD registries. MHSC is also a GRS site. Tough
going. There are MANY arguing for a central registry (Dave Crocker, et al.)
If we are going for only one of each then MHSC would really want IP and DNS
separated. Otherwise there is way too much concentration of power and very
little recourse/remedy.

I see worst case scenario as ONE central IP/TLD registry.
Next is, ONE IP registry --> MANY TLD registries OR
ONE TLD registry and Many IP registries
and, ideally, Many --> Many.

I also want unlimited TLD growth, but that's for the DNS list.

At 01:04 4/14/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>On Monday, April 13, 1998 10:57 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@MCS.NET] wrote:
><snip>
>@
>@> Karl is a different matter. but Karl, what in god's name do you think you
>@> have to gain by your demand that Arin make its files public? Why should
>@> someone who was tunred down be publically exposed as to the reason that
>@> they were turned down? Doesn't that run the risk of giving their
>@> competitors knowlege about them that they can use against them?
>@
>
>Gordon,
>
>What is worse being turned down and having the public see that which
>might cause the public to rally around someone's cause to help reverse ARIN's
>decision ?...

Speaking as the CEO of MHSC.NET, I'd rather an honest, above-board,
publicly open, process. Is ARIN going to do a credit check and publish
that? I don't think so. All we're talking about here is justifying the IP
space in a publicly open fashion. This is actually a benefit. Those of us
who pass an open audit of facilities can then use that to market our
facilities and services and use it as some sort of certification process.
Even carry some sort of badge, like a UL seal of approval. The public can
then review and the bull-shiters found out early. I'd even press for some
sort of Availability rating.

This all depends on a publicly OPEN process.

>...or...having an ARIN agent calling the clients of the ISP and talking
behind
>the ISP's back to get in the middle of the "deal" that is being negotiated to
>make sure that the "right" ISP gets the IP resources...?

This is what stinks. ARIN does NOT belong there.

>In other words...let's imagine that Company X (not an ISP) is out searching
>for an ISP to help provide some large-scale Internet services. Let's imagine
>that it is a large enough project that IP allocations will be required.
Let's also
>imagine that three ISPs are bidding for the work. Let's call them Small,
>Medium and Large. In each case the ISPs bring a different set of assets
>and liabilities to the table, trying to win the contract. Unfortunately,
in ALL
>of the cases, ARIN becomes a central agent that can track the deal and the
>ISPs...there is nothing to stop ARIN agents from sticking their CIA-like
>noses into the deal to make sure they understand it...this can nix the deal
>for the Small and sometimes Medium ISP. Why ? Because it is too easy
>for the ARIN agents to show their bias toward the large ISPs with the
>customer.

Yes.

>As a small example, an ARIN agent can tell the customer that if the
>Small ISP gets the contract they "might" get the IP addresses IF they
>have the ability to justify them. The ARIN agents can also comment that
>if the Large ISP gets the contract then they already have a large block.
>This uncertainty communicated by the ARIN agents can nix the deal for
>the Small ISP.

ARIN has no business talking to end-clients, period. If we were the small
ISP, regardless of the out-come, MHSC would definitely sue...ARIN.

>One of the major problems with a single-supplier like ARIN is that the
>ISPs can give the customer a "spin" about their relationship with ARIN
>and use that against each other. In a multi-supplier situation all of the
>parties would not have 99% of the information. The distributed information
>would keep everyone off-balance in a normal situation. This actually keeps
>the playing field MORE level.

Yes.

>This is why there should be dozens of ARINs and in my opinion the best
>place to put them is in TLD registries. This is like suggesting that banks
>handle auto license plates. Even though the bank may not know much
>about cars, they have the infrastructure to do the administration. A stable
>infrastructure is important. ARIN can only obtain that by charging high fees.
>This is not necessary.

This is where we part company.

>RIPE is learning that trying to live off of only IP sales is not viable. They
>are rapidly expanding to include the TLD registries (see RIPE CENTR).
>ARIN should study that evolution closely. Other TLD registries should also

>consider adding the IP management functions. It seems inevitable that
>these registries will be called up to help. One might as well be prepared.

___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>http://www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!

CC: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>

###

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA28529; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 06:50:29 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
id <01BD6770.FAD67A40@pc.unir.net>; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 06:45:57 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD6770.FAD67A40@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>,
"'Roeland M.J. Meyer'"
<rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "antitrust@usdoj.gov" <antitrust@usdoj.gov>,
"BBURR@ntia.doc.gov"
<BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>, Avi Freedman <freedman@NETAXS.COM>,
Ira Magaziner
"'Jay@Iperdome.com'"
<Jay@Iperdome.com>
Cc: "'Karl Denninger'" <karl@MCS.NET>,
"kimh@INTERNIC.NET"
<kimh@INTERNIC.NET>
Subject: RE: The Risks of Dealing With ARIN
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 06:45:56 -0500
Encoding: 42 TEXT

###

From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 9:01am
Subject: Re: The Risks of Dealing With ARIN

> As a small example, an ARIN agent can tell the customer that if the
> Small ISP gets the contract they "might" get the IP addresses IF they
> have the ability to justify them. The ARIN agents can also comment that
> if the Large ISP gets the contract then they already have a large block.
> This uncertainty communicated by the ARIN agents can nix the deal for
> the Small ISP.

In my experience, the worst that the people now at ARIN did while they were
at the Internic was give address space directly to some large customers we
had.

> Jim Fleming

Avi

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("cook@coo...

###

Received: from popcorn.netaxs.com (root@popcorn.netaxs.com [207.8.186.31])
by mail.netaxs.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA03386;
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:19:24 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from [166.55.76.36] (usr10-dialup21.mix2.Boston.mci.net [166.55.69.85]) by popcorn.netaxs.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA06331; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:19:18 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: cook@pop3.netaxs.com
Message-Id: <v04011202b1591836752e@[166.55.76.36]>
In-Reply-To: <01BD6770.FAD67A40@pc.unir.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 09:50:15 -0400
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
Subject: Jim Fleming's Lies
Cc: antitrust@usdoj.gov, BBURR@ntia.doc.gov, freedman@netaxs.com,
Ira Magaziner, Jay@Iperdome.com, karl@MCS.NET,
kimh@INTERNIC.NET

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/14/98 10:55am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

Kim and all,

Kim Hubbard wrote:

> >
> ARIN doesn't "own" any addresses. They are tasked with the administration
> of the /8s the IANA has delegated to them. We have taken over the
> administration of the blocks previously delegated to InterNIC.
>
> They are: 198/8
> 199/8
> 204/8
> 205/8
> 206/8
> 207/8
> 208/8
> 209/9
> 64/8
>
> We share 192/8 and 24/8 with the other registries.

If this is true, than how come there are any fees paid by those requesting them
paid to the ARIN? Is this a transaction fee or series of transaction fees?

>
>
> Kim
>
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 1:01 PM, Cathy Wittbrodt[SMTP:cjw@corp.home.net] wrote:
> > <snip>
> > @
> > @When @Home applies for address space (and any of the other MSOs that have
> > @allocations out of 24.0.0.0/8) these allocations come from ARIN.
> > @
> >
> > OK...so we can list 24.X.X.X as part of the ARIN assets...
> >
> > You will note that it is somewhat difficult to get ARIN to
> > explain exactly which /8s they claim to now own.
> >
> > -
> > Jim Fleming
> > Unir Corporation
> > IBC, Tortola, BVI
> >
Regards,
CC: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Date: 4/14/98 11:12am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

Roeland and all,

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> At 13:59 4/14/98 -0500, Doug Davis wrote:
> >> We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.
> >
> >Out of curiosity, and from the perspective of a little ISP
> >who has to struggle through the mounds of roadblocks for
> >every little /24 that we need, I would ask you why not?
>
> Agreed, why not?
>
> Also, it would be nice to have the equivalent of a whois, for IP-blocks.
> That is, given an IP addr, who owns it?

I had intimated this earlier on a post on this thread to Avi. Yet he (Avi)
told
me that they have few tools of which to compile this data and put it up
on a database, yet they seem to have plenty of $ for other things, of what,
I do not know. SOunds like a bad management decision problem to me, but
than again who knows. There sure is enough questions to justify a "Look See",
as Karl D. has demanded. I would go a bit further and say that it might be
helpful
for the DOJ to step in here and take a look at just exactly what is going on.

>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
> e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>http://www.mhsc.com/
> ___________________________________________
> SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!

Regards,

CC: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Date: 4/14/98 11:12am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

Roeland and all,

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> At 13:59 4/14/98 -0500, Doug Davis wrote:
> >> We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.
> >
> >Out of curiosity, and from the perspective of a little ISP
> >who has to struggle through the mounds of roadblocks for
> >every little /24 that we need, I would ask you why not?
>
> Agreed, why not?
>
> Also, it would be nice to have the equivalent of a whois, for IP-blocks.
> That is, given an IP addr, who owns it?

I had intimated this earlier on a post on this thread to Avi. Yet he (Avi)
told
me that they have few tools of which to compile this data and put it up
on a database, yet they seem to have plenty of $ for other things, of what,
I do not know. SOunds like a bad management decision problem to me, but
than again who knows. There sure is enough questions to justify a "Look See",
as Karl D. has demanded. I would go a bit further and say that it might be
helpful
for the DOJ to step in here and take a look at just exactly what is going on.

>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
> e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>http://www.mhsc.com/
> ___________________________________________
> SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!

Regards,

CC: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>

###

Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp@hilander.com>
Date: 4/14/98 11:39am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

ALec and all,

Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> At 04:15 PM 4/14/98 , Karl Denninger wrote:
> >
> >If it is then the process by which ARIN claims to operate is bogus. @HOME
> >was clearly in ARIN's (and NSI's before ARIN) boundary of responsibility.
>
> So what? If ARIN/InterNIC refused, then @Home appealed to the IANA, and
> the IANA said okay. How is that ARIN/InterNIC's fault?

Becouse the IANA (Jon Postel) than prevailed on ARIN to allocate the
/8 to @Home. And ARIN complied.

>

>
> I have yet to see where ARIN/InterNIC screwed up on this one.

ARIN should have told the IANA, NO! You do it yourself. We (ARIN) want
no part in this. That simple.

>
>
> Alec
>
> --
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
> |Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Network Engineer |
> |http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company |
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+

Regards,

CC: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp@hilander.com>
Date: 4/14/98 11:29am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

Alec and all,

Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> At 02:59 PM 4/14/98 , Doug Davis wrote:
> >
> >Out of curiosity, and from the perspective of a little ISP
> >who has to struggle through the mounds of roadblocks for
> >every little /24 that we need, I would ask you why not?
>
> Because much of that information could be considered proprietary.
>
> Just a shot in the dark...

Well whatever you were shooting at you missed.

If you are receiving a public asset or in use of a public asset, than there
are certain
disclosure agreements that you must submit to. So I would bet that there is
very little information with respect to disclosure that is a part of the
allocation
requests.

Nice try though. Take a bit better aim next time, ok? >;)

>
>
> Alec
>
> --
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
> |Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Network Engineer |
> |http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company |
> +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Regards,

CC: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Gordon Cook'" <cook@cookreport.com>
Date: 4/14/98 11:47am
Subject: RE: Jim Fleming's Lies

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:50 AM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook@cookreport.com] wrote:
@I send this for the benefit of the government folk who are not on the NAIPR
@list. Read it carefully. What Fleming asserted as fact is NOT fact. The
@man makes up whatever he feels like to delude you into believing there is a
@problem so that he can destroy those whom he imagines one wronged him.
@

Gordon,

Can you be more specific ?
What are you referring to ?

Are you claiming that stand-alone IPv4 address-only leasing companies like
ARIN will have the long-term financial stability to survive without change ?
What happens when IPv6 and IPv8 addresses dilute the value of IPv4 addresses ?
Will ARIN have to raise its prices in a declining market ?
Are you claiming that ARIN will not have to add new products/services ?

Also, what has ARIN paid for the assets that the U.S. Government has provided ?
Will ARIN be paying some sort of royalty or lease in return ?
What other companies will be given the same amount of assets as
well as the InterNIC contact data base ? What is that worth ?

When will the DOC and the White House be making their final decisions on
how ARIN plays out in the so-called Green Paper process ?
Do you support the idea of having ARIN form the base for the IANA Inc. ?
Just think, there would not have to be any discussions about how to staff
it or who would be on the Board. Just think how fast new TLDs would be added.
All of the structure and infrastructure is in place. Jon Postel is on the ARIN Board.

In summary, what is YOUR plan ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "antitrust@usdoj.gov" <antitrust@usdoj.gov>

###

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/14/98 11:53am
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

Kim and all,

Kim Hubbard wrote:

> >
> No Jim, I was stating that I assume you, like everyone else, would not
> want their business plans which in most cases is what is used to
> justify address space, made public.

Well that should not be an issue to begin with Kim. You should have
the authority to release this information already.

On another point here. Some months ago you stated yourself that buisness
plans alone were NOT justification for a portable /19 or better allocation.
Has this now been recinded? Is RFC2050 no longer in effect with respect to
allocations?

>
>
> Kim
>
>
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 9:48 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
> > @>
> > @We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.
> > @
> > @I'm sure you wouldn't want me to tell the world your justification for
> > @obtaining your /19, would you Jim?
> > @
> >
> > Thank you...you have just proved my point...
> > and I have a feeling that you do not even know you did it...
> >
> > ...imagine a doctor at a clinic walking into the waiting room
> > and saying..."We do not disclose medical records of people
> > and then turning to someone and saying...you certainly would
> > not want me to disclose the results of your AIDs test we did
> > last week...would you...as the room listens in..."
> >
> > Now...back to your question...you seem to imply that I have a /19.
> > Is that the case ?
> >
> > You seem to imply that there is something you have to tell.
> > Is that the case ?
> >
> > You also seem to imply that if I have a /19 it is not justified because
> > I would not want the world to know how it was justified.
> > Is that the case ?
> >
> > Is this what you call not disclosing information about requests ?
> > -
> > Jim Fleming
> > Unir Corporation
> > IBC, Tortola, BVI
> >
regards,
CC: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>

###

Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'cjw@corp.home.net'" <cjw@corp.home.net>
Date: 4/14/98 1:37pm
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

On Monday, April 13, 1998 5:39 PM, Cathy Wittbrodt[SMTP:cjw@corp.home.net] wrote:
@
@Jim,
@
@What do you know of @Home's address allocation or justification that was
@given to get the block? A block that was allocated very close to 3 years
@ago by the Internic. @Home has worked with the Internic/ARIN to develop
@allocation guidelines for the entire cable block (24.0.0.0/8) that are
@currently to date more stringent than the ones used for regular ISP
@allocations. We work with all of our cable partners to achieve high levels
@of address space utilization and to make extensive use of RFC1918 address
@space.
@

Hmmm, that's odd, people used to justify the @Home allocation based
on the fact is was supposedly not a full /8. I see now that you state otherwise.

Also, that block was not obtained from the InterNIC. Jon Postel has admitted
that he (IANA) made the allocation directly. As usual, he just made the decision
there was little or no discussion. People justified it by claiming that @Home
had $10 million in venture capital and would serve the cable industry as you
point out. I remember one person saying something about @Home having color
overhead transparencies in their presentation as if that was the compelling reason
to hand a private company a billion dollar asset, apparently tax free.

BTW...
Will the @Home allocation be taken over by ARIN ?
Who handles changes to the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations if they need to be modified ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: Tony Rutkowski <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 1:53pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

>
Jim,

As you know, 24/8 is reserved for *all* cable allocations not just @Home.

And yes, the IANA approved the initial allocation to @Home but the
InterNIC did review the application and made the actual allocation.

@Home has worked very hard to efficiently utilize their address space
as well as working with other cable companies to share their knowledge
of efficient utilization.

Kim

> On Monday, April 13, 1998 5:39 PM, Cathy Wittbrodt[SMTP:cjw@corp.home.net] wrote:
> @
> @Jim,
> @
> @What do you know of @Home's address allocation or justification that was
> @given to get the block? A block that was allocated very close to 3 years
> @ago by the Internic. @Home has worked with the Internic/ARIN to develop
> @allocation guidelines for the entire cable block (24.0.0.0/8) that are
> @currently to date more stringent than the ones used for regular ISP
> @allocations. We work with all of our cable partners to achieve high levels
> @of address space utilization and to make extensive use of RFC1918 address
> @space.
> @
>
> Hmmm, that's odd, people used to justify the @Home allocation based
> on the fact is was supposedly not a full /8. I see now that you state otherwise.
>
> Also, that block was not obtained from the InterNIC. Jon Postel has admitted
> that he (IANA) made the allocation directly. As usual, he just made the decision
> there was little or no discussion. People justified it by claiming that @Home
> had $10 million in venture capital and would serve the cable industry as you
> point out. I remember one person saying something about @Home having color
> overhead transparencies in their presentation as if that was the compelling reason
> to hand a private company a billion dollar asset, apparently tax free.
>
> BTW...
> Will the @Home allocation be taken over by ARIN ?
> Who handles changes to the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations if they need to be modified ?
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI
>

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("cjw@corp...

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 1:54pm
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:53 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
@>
@Jim,
@
@As you know, 24/8 is reserved for *all* cable allocations not just @Home.
@
@And yes, the IANA approved the initial allocation to @Home but the
@InterNIC did review the application and made the actual allocation.
@
@@Home has worked very hard to efficiently utilize their address space
@as well as working with other cable companies to share their knowledge
@of efficient utilization.
@

Yes, many people have worked hard...here were the questions...

@> Will the @Home allocation be taken over by ARIN ?
@> Who handles changes to the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations if they need to be modified ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 1:56pm
Subject: 24.0.0.0 For Cable Allocations

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:53 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
@>
@Jim,
@
@As you know, 24/8 is reserved for *all* cable allocations not just @Home.
@

Where do the cable companies go to obtain address space ?
Who reviews those applications ?
How do you define a cable company ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 2:00pm
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:53 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
<snip>
@And yes, the IANA approved the initial allocation to @Home but the
@InterNIC did review the application and made the actual allocation.
@

What did the review of the application show ?

What role did Paul Mockapetris play in the allocation ?
Was Paul's previous employment at USC/ISI a factor ?

Also, was Michael St. Johns of @Home involved ?
I believe that he used to be Colonel Michael St. Johns and was
one of the military DARPA managers that funded Jon Postel as the IANA.
Did that have any impact on @Home obtaining that allocation ?

What factors are taken into account when ARIN "reviews" applications ?

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Cathy Wittbrodt'" <cjw@corp.home.net>
Date: 4/14/98 2:03pm
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 1:01 PM, Cathy Wittbrodt[SMTP:cjw@corp.home.net] wrote:
<snip>
@
@When @Home applies for address space (and any of the other MSOs that have
@allocations out of 24.0.0.0/8) these allocations come from ARIN.
@

OK...so we can list 24.X.X.X as part of the ARIN assets...

You will note that it is somewhat difficult to get ARIN to
explain exactly which /8s they claim to now own.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: Tony Rutkowski <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: Cathy Wittbrodt <cjw@corp.home.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 2:01pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off
On Monday, April 13, 1998 5:39 PM, Cathy Wittbrodt[SMTP:cjw@corp.home.net] wrote:
@
@Jim,
@
@What do you know of @Home's address allocation or justification that was
@given to get the block? A block that was allocated very close to 3 years
@ago by the Internic. @Home has worked with the Internic/ARIN to develop
@allocation guidelines for the entire cable block (24.0.0.0/8) that are
@currently to date more stringent than the ones used for regular ISP
@allocations. We work with all of our cable partners to achieve high levels
@of address space utilization and to make extensive use of RFC1918 address
@space.
@

Hmmm, that's odd, people used to justify the @Home allocation based
on the fact is was supposedly not a full /8. I see now that you state otherwise.

Our allocation is indeed not a whole /8. The whole /8 is for Cable business
and we helped define what that is and what the allocation guidelines are.

Also, that block was not obtained from the InterNIC. Jon Postel has admitted
that he (IANA) made the allocation directly. As usual, he just made the decision
there was little or no discussion. People justified it by claiming that @Home
had $10 million in venture capital and would serve the cable industry as you
point out. I remember one person saying something about @Home having color
overhead transparencies in their presentation as if that was the compelling reason
to hand a private company a billion dollar asset, apparently tax free.

This is nonsense. There was a sound engineering plan that we are executing
against.

BTW...
Will the @Home allocation be taken over by ARIN ?
Who handles changes to the IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations if they need to be modified ?

When @Home applies for address space (and any of the other MSOs that have
allocations out of 24.0.0.0/8) these allocations come from ARIN.

---CJ

CC: Tony Rutkowski <amr@CHAOS.COM>

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Cathy Wittbrodt'" <cjw@corp.home.net>
Date: 4/14/98 2:21pm
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 1:01 PM, Cathy Wittbrodt[SMTP:cjw@corp.home.net] wrote:
@
<snip>
@
@This is nonsense. There was a sound engineering plan that we are executing
@against.
@

As you pointed out, three years ago things were different.
It is funny how three years and an IPO and access to a
huge allocation of IP addresses can produce engineering
plans.

This reminds me of people's comments about NSI deserving
to own .COM because they have made a huge investment
in computer centers and taken risks. People forget that
without the .COM delegation or IP allocations, a business
can not move forward no matter how sound their engineering
plans.

What the U.S. Government needs to evaluate is what the
impact is of having the U.S. Government handing out billions
of dollars in assets with no bid process and no oversight.
Obviously, companies that obtain these huge assets prosper
but other companies are denied access. This impacts many
areas of the U.S. Government. The White House and the
DOC are involved but eventually the IRS and SEC have to
become more involved. It is not clear that companies are
accounting for these assets properly even though they
clearly impact the value of their company.

Many people feel that this will all go away when the NSI
InterNIC contract ends. I claim that the sizzle of domain
names may disappear but the steak will now appear. That
is the IP addresses and the other assets that the IANA Inc.
will control. Unfortunately, some companies feel that they
have already been given ownership of these assets. If they
have, it was via the U.S. Government and that means that
everything on the IANA's plate (past and present) needs to
be investigated.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: Tony Rutkowski <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

Received: from pc.unir.net (dial5.p0.unety.net [207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA29014; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 13:26:14 -0500
Received: by pc.unir.net with Microsoft Mail
id <01BD67A8.44AE9260@pc.unir.net>; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 13:21:44 -0500
Message-ID: <01BD67A8.44AE9260@pc.unir.net>
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Cathy Wittbrodt'" <cjw@corp.home.net>
Cc: Tony Rutkowski <amr@CHAOS.COM>,
"Antitrust DEPT. DOJ Justice"
<antitrust@usdoj.gov>,
"'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'"
<BBURR@ntia.doc.gov>,
Ira Magaziner
"'Jeff Williams'"
<jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>,
"'Karl Denninger'" <karl@mcs.net>
Cc: "'ARIN list'" <naipr@arin.net>, Jon Postel <postel@ISI.EDU>
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 13:21:42 -0500
Encoding: 45 TEXT

###

From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 2:44pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

>
ARIN doesn't "own" any addresses. They are tasked with the administration
of the /8s the IANA has delegated to them. We have taken over the
administration of the blocks previously delegated to InterNIC.

They are: 198/8
199/8
204/8
205/8
206/8
207/8
208/8
209/9
64/8

We share 192/8 and 24/8 with the other registries.

Kim

> On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 1:01 PM, Cathy Wittbrodt[SMTP:cjw@corp.home.net] wrote:
> <snip>
> @
> @When @Home applies for address space (and any of the other MSOs that have
> @allocations out of 24.0.0.0/8) these allocations come from ARIN.
> @
>
> OK...so we can list 24.X.X.X as part of the ARIN assets...
>
> You will note that it is somewhat difficult to get ARIN to
> explain exactly which /8s they claim to now own.
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI
>

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("cjw@corp...

###

From: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
Date: 4/14/98 2:48pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

>
We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.

I'm sure you wouldn't want me to tell the world your justification for
obtaining your /19, would you Jim?

-kim

> On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:53 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
> <snip>
> @And yes, the IANA approved the initial allocation to @Home but the
> @InterNIC did review the application and made the actual allocation.
> @
>
> What did the review of the application show ?
>
> What role did Paul Mockapetris play in the allocation ?
> Was Paul's previous employment at USC/ISI a factor ?
>
> Also, was Michael St. Johns of @Home involved ?
> I believe that he used to be Colonel Michael St. Johns and was
> one of the military DARPA managers that funded Jon Postel as the IANA.
> Did that have any impact on @Home obtaining that allocation ?
>
> What factors are taken into account when ARIN "reviews" applications ?
>
> -
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation
> IBC, Tortola, BVI
>

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("JimFlemi...

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/14/98 2:51pm
Subject: Does ARIN own IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names ?

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 9:44 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
@>
@ARIN doesn't "own" any addresses.

OK...thanks for the list...

Does ARIN "own" any domain names besides ARIN.NET ?

How about the following domain names ?

24.IN-ADDR.ARPA
64.IN-ADDR.ARPA
192.IN-ADDR.ARPA
198.IN-ADDR.ARPA
199.IN-ADDR.ARPA
204.IN-ADDR.ARPA
205.IN-ADDR.ARPA
206.IN-ADDR.ARPA
207.IN-ADDR.ARPA
208.IN-ADDR.ARPA
209.IN-ADDR.ARPA

Where do the above domain names get registered. I don't
suppose that would be at ARIN because as everyone knows
ARIN does not have anything to do with domain names...or
at least that is what the U.S. Government officials were told.

Those sure look like domain names to me...maybe not .COM
names, but domain names none the less.

-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: Doug Davis <dougd@mail.airmail.net>
To: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/14/98 2:59pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

> We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.

Out of curiosity, and from the perspective of a little ISP
who has to struggle through the mounds of roadblocks for
every little /24 that we need, I would ask you why not?

CC: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(BBURR),NTIADC40.SMTP40("kimh@ari...

###

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: "'Kim Hubbard'" <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/14/98 3:03pm
Subject: RE: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 9:48 AM, Kim Hubbard[SMTP:kimh@arin.net] wrote:
@>
@We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.
@
@I'm sure you wouldn't want me to tell the world your justification for
@obtaining your /19, would you Jim?
@

Thank you...you have just proved my point...
and I have a feeling that you do not even know you did it...

...imagine a doctor at a clinic walking into the waiting room
and saying..."We do not disclose medical records of people
and then turning to someone and saying...you certainly would
not want me to disclose the results of your AIDs test we did
last week...would you...as the room listens in..."

Now...back to your question...you seem to imply that I have a /19.
Is that the case ?

You seem to imply that there is something you have to tell.
Is that the case ?

You also seem to imply that if I have a /19 it is not justified because
I would not want the world to know how it was justified.
Is that the case ?

Is this what you call not disclosing information about requests ?
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Network Engineer |
|http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+

###

From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
To: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/14/98 3:18pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

On Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 01:53:43PM -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote:
> >
> Jim,
>
> As you know, 24/8 is reserved for *all* cable allocations not just @Home.
>
> And yes, the IANA approved the initial allocation to @Home but the
> InterNIC did review the application and made the actual allocation.
>
> @Home has worked very hard to efficiently utilize their address space
> as well as working with other cable companies to share their knowledge
> of efficient utilization.
>
> Kim

You're lying through omission again Kim.

You, at the Internic, were asked for the allocation.
You refused it.

@HOME went to Jon Postel directly.
He directed you to grant it out of space he assigned.

Is this not the truth?

And if it is, why did you misrepresent what happened above?

If it is not, please DOCUMENT what actually happened.

If you refuse, with someone at the DOJ please obtain that information via
subpoena and investigate this ENTIRE thing, including ARIN and its transfer
from NSI, to see if any laws have been broken?

This is one of the sore spots in this entire mess that looks to me like
an improper action on the part of a government contractor.

CC: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>

##

From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@doorstep.unety.net>
To: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>
Date: 4/14/98 3:25pm
Subject: Play Ball !!

On Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:59 AM, Doug Davis[SMTP:dougd@mail.airmail.net] wrote:
@> We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.
@
@Out of curiosity, and from the perspective of a little ISP
@who has to struggle through the mounds of roadblocks for
@every little /24 that we need, I would ask you why not?
@

Firstly, you have to understand that they practice "selective" disclosure.
If the so-called Internet Community (or party-line) feels that an allocation
is OK, then people high-five the topic. Everyone plays ball and has a good
time flying around the world to parties where the "right" people enjoy the
allocations they have obtained. Companies then hire these "right" people
to help them grease the skids for more allocations. It all runs very smoothly
when everyone is playing ball and making sure that ARIN is taken care of
politically and financially.
If on the other hand, you decide that you do not want to be subjected to
the party-line and be co-opted, then you will be selectively delayed in the
process of obtaining resources. In short, you will get the old fashioned
"run around". If you have invested a lot of money, you can not afford this
so you have little choice but to fall in line and play ball. Unfortunately,
the day will come when you end up going to head to head with another
ISP for a contract. When that occurs, you want to make sure that the
InterNIC "agents" do not start spreading misinformation. If they do then
you will find that your competition will gladly pick it up and use it to close
the deal against you.

Much of this stems from the fact that there are no alternative sources of
Internet resources. You are basically in the information business and in
order to do business you have to provide people with information who in
my opinion have no need for that information and have little regard for how
they use that information. They try to operate above the law. It does not
work because they do not follow the same government guidelines that
the IRS, SEC and other agencies have to follow. Also, because it is such
a small tight community, your information gets passed around and they
use it to further their cause. They completely disregard their roles as
contractors for the U.S. Government.
-
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
IBC, Tortola, BVI

CC: "amr@CHAOS.COM" <amr@CHAOS.COM>

###

From: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp@hilander.com>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Date: 4/14/98 3:32pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

At 03:27 PM 4/14/98 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
>Also, it would be nice to have the equivalent of a whois, for IP-blocks.
>That is, given an IP addr, who owns it?

What's wrong with whois.arin.net?

Alec

CC: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>

###

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: NTIADC40.SMTP40("dougd@mail.airmail.net")
Date: 4/14/98 3:27pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

At 13:59 4/14/98 -0500, Doug Davis wrote:
>> We do not disclose information on requests as you well know.
>
>Out of curiosity, and from the perspective of a little ISP
>who has to struggle through the mounds of roadblocks for
>every little /24 that we need, I would ask you why not?

Agreed, why not?

Also, it would be nice to have the equivalent of a whois, for IP-blocks.
That is, given an IP addr, who owns it?

___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>http://www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!

CC: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>

###

From: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp@hilander.com>
To: Karl Denninger <karl@MCS.NET>
Date: 4/14/98 3:28pm
Subject: Re: FW: ARIN and Network Soultions: consumer rip-off

At 03:18 PM 4/14/98 , Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>You're lying through omission again Kim.
>
>You, at the Internic, were asked for the allocation.
>You refused it.
>
>@HOME went to Jon Postel directly.
>He directed you to grant it out of space he assigned.
>
>Is this not the truth?

Karl,

So what if it is?

Which of these bodies do you want to sue over it? ARIN/InterNIC? IANA?
@Home?

Alec

CC: Kim Hubbard <kimh@arin.net>

###