From - Tue May 19 16:40:03 1998 Message-Id: <00001A67@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:59:02 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_D98D800B.08690564" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_D98D800B.08690564 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_D98D800B.08690564 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:49:35 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_D98D800B.09680465" --=_D98D800B.09680465 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_D98D800B.09680465 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc-pjnesser.nesser.com (ns [206.129.134.238]) by ns.Nesser.COM (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA07071; Thu, 14 May 1998 13:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Philip J. Nesser II" To: "Jim Fleming" , , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , , , Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:02:01 -0700 Message-ID: <003001bd7f73$28a96a80$b00a0180@pc-pjnesser.nesser.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <01BD7F47.7F49F200@webster.unir.net> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming@unety.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 12:49 PM > To: arin-council@arin.net; 'ARIN list'; 'pjnesser@nesser.com' > Cc: 'Antitrust List'; antitrust@usdoj.gov; BBURR@ntia.doc.gov; > Ira Magaziner > Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? >=20 >=20 > On Thursday, May 14, 1998 2:15 PM, Philip J. Nesser=20 > II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser.com] wrote: > =20 > @ > @There are advantages and disadvantages to being in an area early or > @late, this is reality. > @ >=20 > Since we can not change the past, do you advocate a "land grab" > from here on out ? >=20 No I advocate allocations on an as needed basis in order to promote address conservation and to hold down the increase in router table growth. > How should future /8 allocations be handled ? Under whatever guideline accepted by the community at the time. There were different guidelines in the past and I expect different ones on the future. Currently /8's are being given to the three regional registries to be distributed in their geographic regions, and to caretakers for new industries (ie 24/8 for the cable industry). =20 > Do other countries get any large allocations ? If they can meet the guidelines that are commonly accepted to get the allocations then yes. > How about other military organizations in the world ? They can apply like anyone else. =20 > Who will make those decisions ? >=20 The IANA with community support in the form of solicitations and RFC's for /8 allocations and the regional registries for smaller allocations. > Also, are you implying that there is no merit in having > addresses returned ? What if a company is no longer > in business ? As the author of the RFC/BCP suggesting returning unused space, I obviously advocate people doing it. There is great merit in it, especially in the "older" 128/3 and 192/8 spaces where blocks of unused and returned space can be put together to lower the number of announced routes. I firmly believe that if a company is out of business (or a person who is dead) then the addresses should be reclaimed. >=20 > What do you think about the idea that all /8 owners > should be encouraged to become IPv4 registries ? I think it is a horrendous idea. I believe that if anyone tried to do that the ISP's in the world would just refuse to accept the announcements. If a /8 owner is in the ISP business (like PSI, AT&T, IBM, & APPLE (there may be others but)) use the address space they were allocated in accordance with the commonly accepted community standards then I expect the other ISP's will listen to the announcements. =20 > Is that what AT&T has become with 12.0.0.0 ? >=20 No. AT&T is an ISP who is assigning addresses to their customers like every other ISP in the world. =20 >=20 > - > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net > IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race > AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM >=20 >=20 - ---> Phil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNVtNuDW2hWRjwTVBEQKvuQCeJwk5Eo+QJmi+J1YPPcPP93E+NZsAoN25 rAhsGv1jLfS5sbwc+fFoSpJE =3Dhper -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_D98D800B.09680465-- --=_D98D800B.08690564-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:03 1998 Message-Id: <00001A69@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:59:04 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_CF9B961D.0E6F0362" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_CF9B961D.0E6F0362 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_CF9B961D.0E6F0362 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:49:36 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_CF9B961D.0F6E0263" --=_CF9B961D.0F6E0263 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_CF9B961D.0F6E0263 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc-pjnesser.nesser.com (ns [206.129.134.238]) by ns.Nesser.COM (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA07167; Thu, 14 May 1998 13:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Philip J. Nesser II" To: "Jim Fleming" , , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , , , Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:37:00 -0700 Message-ID: <003201bd7f78$0bf12cc0$b00a0180@pc-pjnesser.nesser.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <01BD7F4C.3DC67420@webster.unir.net> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Would it be "OK" for AT&T to sell someone a low-speed connection > and give them a large block ? >=20 > Can that someone then advertise that block on other networks ? >=20 > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02336.html > What if the price of the low-speed connection and the large block > are less than the price of doing business with ARIN ? That is a choice that=20 A) AT&T will have to make with their addresses bearing in mind that once they run out of their /8 then it is probaby unlikely that they will get any more address space from the regional registries or IANA. B) The other ISP's in the world choose to accept the announcements. > In summary, it seems to me that the money is in the addresses, > the connection cost may be a nuisance charge that ISPs eat > to obtain addresses.=20 The fees to get an allocation if you are going to use it are nothing compared to connection costs. An ISP who is using a /19 is probably paying more in a week in connection costs than the will ever pay for getting the allocation. > Once they obtain them, they will "own" > them and by your rules, they do not have to give them back > because they enjoy the benefits of being there early. In other > words, in 4 or 5 years, 1998 may be considered to be "early". I have never used the word "own" when refering to IP addresses. I use the words allocate and assign. Every ISP that I know specifies that addresses are not portable. The overall block still remains part of the upstreams allocation.=20 And BTW I expect in 4 or 5 years getting in in 1998 will definitely seem early to those people looking back, for many reasons. I won't even begin to count the different number of areas that ou could look back 4 or 5 years ago and think that people who got in then had it easier. - ---> Phil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNVtV6zW2hWRjwTVBEQL0SQCg6h0ZXK2iGQ1RF0POrSSsAHWxWgwAn1Ic ClqBeTrNU2l985M+JFoAkNuF =3D98RK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_CF9B961D.0F6E0263-- --=_CF9B961D.0E6F0362-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:08 1998 Message-Id: <00001A73@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:59:06 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: RFC 2008 -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_DD89840F.0A6B0766" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_DD89840F.0A6B0766 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_DD89840F.0A6B0766 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:49:37 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: RFC 2008 -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_DD89840F.0B6A0667" --=_DD89840F.0B6A0667 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_DD89840F.0B6A0667 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc-pjnesser.nesser.com (ns [206.129.134.238]) by ns.Nesser.COM (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA07218; Thu, 14 May 1998 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Philip J. Nesser II" To: "Jim Fleming" Cc: , , , Subject: RE: RFC 2008 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:51:50 -0700 Message-ID: <003301bd7f7a$1e33f0a0$b00a0180@pc-pjnesser.nesser.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <01BD7F4F.AF694E60@webster.unir.net> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-naipr@arin.net [mailto:owner-naipr@arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim > Fleming > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 1:48 PM > To: arin-council@arin.net; 'ARIN list' > Cc: 'Antitrust List'; antitrust@usdoj.gov; BBURR@ntia.doc.gov; > Ira Magaziner > Subject: RFC 2008 >=20 >=20 > On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:02 PM, Philip J. Nesser=20 > II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser.com] wrote: > > @ > @As the author of the RFC/BCP suggesting returning unused space, I > @obviously advocate people doing it. There is great merit in it, > @especially in the "older" 128/3 and 192/8 spaces where blocks of > @unused and returned space can be put together to lower the number of > @announced routes. I firmly believe that if a company is out of > @business (or a person who is dead) then the addresses should be > @reclaimed. > @ >=20 > I assume that by "RFC" you mean one of those IETF documents. > Clearly, other organizations larger or smaller than the IETF can > also have RFCs. >=20 Obviously. Anyone who has taken even a small amount of effort will realize that people generally mean the IETF document series that has been in existence for nearly 30 years when they hear the term RFC in reference to an Internet ralated issue. > Continuing, is your proposal compatible with RFC 2008 ? >=20 Once again, obviously. Asking the question shows you clearly have not read at least one of the documents. > @@@ http://www.isi.edu/rfc-editor/catagories/rfc-best.html >=20 > rfc2008 Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for=20 > Internet Routing >=20 > @@@@@@@ >=20 > Does ARIN have to conform to RFC 2008 ? > What if the ARIN Board decides not to ? >=20 As long as the RFC's are considered current then ARIN should conform to them. As has been pointed out numerous times, policies changes as situations do. Almost all of the RFC's are written *after* the policies have been in place and tried out. They are written to codify the current practices. =20 As I (and numerous others) have said in the past, if for some reason the ARIN board (or the RIPE board or the APNIC board) all go insane and try and do things in a way that is not in the best interest of the Internet, then they won't be accepted in the future. >=20 > - > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net > IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race > AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM >=20 >=20 - ---> Phil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNVtZZTW2hWRjwTVBEQItXQCg5Rg08vNoNHRAi0ZiC5bdxyyId6oAoLXk s2gmV7jjbE1tc28j4/oQay4D =3DGeqO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_DD89840F.0B6A0667-- --=_DD89840F.0A6B0766-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:08 1998 Message-Id: <00001A71@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:59:08 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E2B6BB30.04650968" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E2B6BB30.04650968 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E2B6BB30.04650968 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:49:39 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E2B6BB30.05640869" --=_E2B6BB30.05640869 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E2B6BB30.05640869 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc-pjnesser.nesser.com (ns [206.129.134.238]) by ns.Nesser.COM (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA07254; Thu, 14 May 1998 14:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Philip J. Nesser II" To: "Jim Fleming" , , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , , , Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:05:00 -0700 Message-ID: <003401bd7f7b$f4f14740$b00a0180@pc-pjnesser.nesser.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <01BD7F51.270D3F20@webster.unir.net> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-naipr@arin.net [mailto:owner-naipr@arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim > Fleming > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 1:59 PM > To: arin-council@arin.net; 'ARIN list' > Cc: 'Antitrust List'; antitrust@usdoj.gov; BBURR@ntia.doc.gov; > Ira Magaziner > Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? >=20 >=20 > On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:37 PM, Philip J. Nesser=20 > II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser.com] wrote: > @-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > @Hash: SHA1 > @ > @> Would it be "OK" for AT&T to sell someone a low-speed connection > @> and give them a large block ? > @>=20 > @> Can that someone then advertise that block on other networks ? > @>=20 > @> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02336.html > @ > @> What if the price of the low-speed connection and the large block > @> are less than the price of doing business with ARIN ? > @ > @That is a choice that=20 > @ > @A) AT&T will have to make with their addresses bearing in mind that > @once they run out of their /8 then it is probaby unlikely that they > @will get any more address space from the regional registries or IANA. > @ >=20 > What does that mean ? > Why wouldn't AT&T get more, just like everyone else ? >=20 > Are you saying this is a subjective process ? >=20 There are allocation guidelines that the registries follow. If AT&T did something stupid (like giving you a /24 if you switch long distance service) then I doubt the registries would give them more space. Everyone else does NOT get more space if they though away the space they have and do not follow the accepted utilization guidelines. =20 > @B) The other ISP's in the world choose to accept the announcements. >=20 > Why wouldn't they accept those announcements if it provides > a way to get rid of packets ? >=20 You obviously believe that ISP's will cut off their arm to save a finger? Routing table growth (and flap) is the single biggest problem big ISP's face. Hence all of the restrictive filters. =20 > There seems to be a common misconception on the Internet > that some companies do not like connections and extra routes. > This is not the case if they can use those routes to get rid of > packets, as opposed to attracting packets. People seem to > think it is "cool" to attract a lot of traffic. This is not smart, the > key is to get rid of packets not attract them. >=20 I doubt anyone who is an ISP or has any understanding of network engineering has any such misconceptions. > Also, it is best to get rid of the packets via the route that will > deliver them in the most efficient manner. This helps the > overall performance of the net. It does not one any good to > keep passing packets around so that everyone gets a > chance to handle it to look like a cool place that does a lot > of routing. "Best" is a relative term. Best for ISP A may be to route it though ISP B, but ISP B might not think so, especially if they don't have a transit agreement with ISP A. If it was all one network then the engineering decisions are different than connecting a bunch of diverse, and seperately owned networks. >=20 > The aura of MAE-East is not a good thing. I hear people > say, "our traffic goes through MAE-East" as if that is a plus. > In many cases, that is hardly a bonus. >=20 In you scenerio AT&T sold them a low speed link. If they have to get their packets throught that link then I doubt any ISP would trade a /19 for having to route all of their traffic through that 56k link.=20 You also make numerous mistakes in your perception of how packets are delivered and how multihomed sites actually work. =20 > - > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net > IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race > AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM >=20 >=20 - ---> Phil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNVtcezW2hWRjwTVBEQKqBwCgsdSe8UzIUDHzJfj1je6ZeaAnLvsAn23X j3DOC+f7hhAA4fYKTFlTnaqN =3Dszs/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_E2B6BB30.05640869-- --=_E2B6BB30.04650968-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:09 1998 Message-Id: <00001A6D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:59:11 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who is in the "community" -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E3B7BA31.06670B6A" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E3B7BA31.06670B6A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E3B7BA31.06670B6A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:49:40 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who is in the "community" -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E3B7BA31.07660A6B" --=_E3B7BA31.07660A6B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E3B7BA31.07660A6B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc-pjnesser.nesser.com (ns [206.129.134.238]) by ns.Nesser.COM (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA07273; Thu, 14 May 1998 14:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Philip J. Nesser II" To: "Jim Fleming" , , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , , , Subject: RE: Who is in the "community" Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:13:12 -0700 Message-ID: <003501bd7f7d$1a81ddc0$b00a0180@pc-pjnesser.nesser.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <01BD7F4D.B98A4D60@webster.unir.net> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-naipr@arin.net [mailto:owner-naipr@arin.net]On Behalf Of Jim > Fleming > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 1:34 PM > To: arin-council@arin.net; 'ARIN list' > Cc: 'Antitrust List'; antitrust@usdoj.gov; BBURR@ntia.doc.gov; > Ira Magaziner > Subject: Who is in the "community" >=20 >=20 > On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:02 PM, Philip J. Nesser=20 > II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser.com] wrote: > > @ > @> How should future /8 allocations be handled ? > @ > @Under whatever guideline accepted by the community at the time. >=20 > Can you clarify who is in the so-called "community" ? >=20 > Would that be Jon Postel (aka IANA) and the ITAG ? > What about RIPE, ARIN and APNIC ? > What about AT&T, MCI, and SPRINT ? > What about Cuba, Iraq and Libya ? >=20 > Who is in this "community" and who determines that ? >=20 The comunity is a social concept that is difficult to quantify. To me the community is the people who have a direct stake in the health of the Internet. ISP's, businesses, researches, and all of the users.=20 Some of that community is represented by government officials as part of their role as representatives of their constituents. =20 - ---> Phil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNVteaDW2hWRjwTVBEQJ2IwCgrzHUELM4YkVckN8XlyBebCf+Y2YAoPqE jL2wEcZsOCW8wvP1cby9pe6Q =3DrvpY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_E3B7BA31.07660A6B-- --=_E3B7BA31.06670B6A-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:09 1998 Message-Id: <00001A6F@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:59:12 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: RFC 2008 -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E3B7BA31.00610D6C" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E3B7BA31.00610D6C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E3B7BA31.00610D6C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:49:42 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: RFC 2008 -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E3B7BA31.01600C6D" --=_E3B7BA31.01600C6D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E3B7BA31.01600C6D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc-pjnesser.nesser.com (ns [206.129.134.238]) by ns.Nesser.COM (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA07277; Thu, 14 May 1998 14:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Philip J. Nesser II" To: "Jim Fleming" Cc: , , , Subject: RE: RFC 2008 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:16:37 -0700 Message-ID: <003601bd7f7d$94af5500$b00a0180@pc-pjnesser.nesser.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <01BD7F51.FC468340@webster.unir.net> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > @As I (and numerous others) have said in the past, if for some reason > @the ARIN board (or the RIPE board or the APNIC board) all go insane > @and try and do things in a way that is not in the best interest of the > @Internet, then they won't be accepted in the future. > @ >=20 > Lets assume for a moment, a worst case scenario... >=20 > What does your "community" do ? >=20 How does any community deal with an organization of public trust that fails to meet it obligations? They don't get any more space to allocate from. The IANA works to set up a new registry and the ISP's refuse support them.=20 > BTW...Who was in that "community" again ? >=20 >=20 See my reply in a different message. > - > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net > IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race > AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM >=20 >=20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNVtfNTW2hWRjwTVBEQL55ACgmYcOCE1qm+NzwV4O/W8k7oor+aUAn13y GmJq2306pMpTaKYidKp+/8RR =3Dd+og -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_E3B7BA31.01600C6D-- --=_E3B7BA31.00610D6C-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:10 1998 Message-Id: <00001A6B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:59:13 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E3B7BA31.02630F6E" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E3B7BA31.02630F6E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E3B7BA31.02630F6E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:49:43 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E3B7BA31.03620E6F" --=_E3B7BA31.03620E6F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E3B7BA31.03620E6F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from pc-pjnesser.nesser.com (ns [206.129.134.238]) by ns.Nesser.COM (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA07404; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:03:02 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: From: "Philip J. Nesser II" To: "Jim Fleming" , , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , , , Subject: RE: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:49:27 -0700 Message-ID: <003701bd7f8a$8c4ccde0$b00a0180@pc-pjnesser.nesser.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <01BD7F5A.4B139280@webster.unir.net> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > @ > @There are allocation guidelines that the registries follow. If AT&T > @did something stupid (like giving you a /24 if you switch long > @distance service) then I doubt the registries would give them more > @space. Everyone else does NOT get more space if they though away the > @space they have and do not follow the accepted utilization guidelines. > @=20 >=20 > Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? And what makes you think that the IANA would give them more addresses in the face of blatant misuse of the ones they had? >=20 > I doubt if they obtained their current /8 from one > of the regional registries. Some of those registries > have not been around for very long and I doubt if > AT&T pays much attention to them. >=20 I certainly agree that AT&T didn't get 12/8 from any of the registries. > With the proposed IANA Inc. wouldn't this all become > a business transaction that has nothing to do with what > happened with someone's /24 ? Do you really think the > IANA Inc. is going to go to each AT&T customer to > find out how they obtained their space ? Why would > AT&T tell them if they could do that ? >=20 No. (Or at least that is my perception.) Once again I believe that the IANA, now or in its future form, will serve as trustees for public resources. The registries currently check SWIPEs of suballocations for reasonable utilization and I would expect the IANA to follow similar guidelines. =20 > BTW...AT&T above is just one example, any one of > the large companies (DEC, HP, Apple, Xerox, etc.) > could be substituted for these examples. I do not > think it matters exactly what business they are in. > For example, what if large IPv4 blocks come with > copiers/printers from Xerox ? Can people peel those > off and use them in other places or will they be > tied to copiers/printers ? >=20 There are clearly other examples, but I feel strongly that the ISP community would keep any such actions from being realistic. > Who do you think is going to "police" all this ? > Are you being realistic in your assumptions ? >=20 I think the situation is self policing to some degree and is policed to another degree by the policies of ARIN/RIPE/APNIC. I do believe that my assumptions are realistic. >=20 > - > Jim Fleming > Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net > IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race > AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM >=20 >=20 - ---> Phil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNVt09TW2hWRjwTVBEQIOYgCgnKYcHgjes7W+6xhNIKzAR5zOb6UAn0IO 0xymdKZryj1ME+kH3xIyqg4E =3DYyYn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=_E3B7BA31.03620E6F-- --=_E3B7BA31.02630F6E-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:10 1998 Message-Id: <00001A75@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:06:49 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: FW: Why is APNIC Moving ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E0B4B932.FC9DF190" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E0B4B932.FC9DF190 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E0B4B932.FC9DF190 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:20 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: FW: Why is APNIC Moving ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E0B4B932.FD9CF091" --=_E0B4B932.FD9CF091 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E0B4B932.FD9CF091 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA20660; Wed, 13 May 1998 08:43:02 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7E4A.600D3580@webster.unir.net>; Wed, 13 May 1998 08:37:34 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7E4A.600D3580@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" Cc: "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: FW: Why is APNIC Moving ? Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:37:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline ---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming@unety.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 8:36 AM To: 'David R. Conrad'; intl-wg@nic.ad.jp Cc: APNIC-TALK@apnic.net; ec-satou@kdd.co.jp; intl-wg@nic.ad.jp; = ip-wg@nic.ad.jp; kdd-hk@ats.sjk.kdd.co.jp; mo-abe@kdd.co.jp Subject: Why is APNIC Moving ? On Wednesday, May 13, 1998 2:55 AM, David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] = wrote: @ @Actually, it can't. APNIC Pty Ltd is a shell organization right now. It @has no members as all current members have contractual agreements with @APNIC Ltd (Seychelles). Without having members, it can't have an EC = (since @the EC comes from the membership). This section is in the by-laws in = order @to bootstrap the EC by simply transfering over the EC from the Seychelles.= @ Can someone explain why APNIC is moving ? Do regional registries generally move when one person wants to change jobs or careers ? What happens to all of the people and their needs in Japan, Korea, China, etc. ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E0B4B932.FD9CF091-- --=_E0B4B932.FC9DF190-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:11 1998 Message-Id: <00001A7B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:06:51 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: How Can ARIN Qualify as a Non-Profit Company ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E1B5B833.FE9FF392" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E1B5B833.FE9FF392 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E1B5B833.FE9FF392 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:20 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: How Can ARIN Qualify as a Non-Profit Company ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E1B5B833.FF9EF293" --=_E1B5B833.FF9EF293 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E1B5B833.FF9EF293 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA24344; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:09:12 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F49.7CFC6DA0@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:03:44 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F49.7CFC6DA0@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: How Can ARIN Qualify as a Non-Profit Company ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:03:42 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Given the following, how can ARIN qualify as a non-profit company ? http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/index.html http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bus-orgs.html @@@@ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bl-req.html "No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit or organized to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit (even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be self-sustaining)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E1B5B833.FF9EF293-- --=_E1B5B833.FE9FF392-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:11 1998 Message-Id: <00001A7F@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:06:51 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E1B5B833.F899F594" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E1B5B833.F899F594 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E1B5B833.F899F594 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:21 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E1B5B833.F998F495" --=_E1B5B833.F998F495 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E1B5B833.F998F495 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA24377; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:28:55 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F4C.3DC67420@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:23:26 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F4C.3DC67420@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:23:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:02 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @> Is that what AT&T has become with 12.0.0.0 ? @>=20 @ @No. AT&T is an ISP who is assigning addresses to their customers like @every other ISP in the world. =20 @ Would it be "OK" for AT&T to sell someone a low-speed connection and give them a large block ? Can that someone then advertise that block on other networks ? http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02336.html What if the price of the low-speed connection and the large block are less than the price of doing business with ARIN ? Should companies do business with AT&T instead ? In this scenario the company might look at the low-speed AT&T connection as a added bonus or back-up connection to get a block. That is something I assume that ARIN can not provide. This reminds me of the days where companies would get an extra discount from DEC if they bought extra "cpus". When they would buy a VAX they would save money by first listing a bunch of 11/23s on the order. They could then give the 11/23s away and still get their VAX for less money. Universities and research labs had 11/23s sitting in boxes as a bonus for placing the order correctly. DEC did not seem to care. They sold a VAX. In summary, it seems to me that the money is in the addresses, the connection cost may be a nuisance charge that ISPs eat to obtain addresses. Once they obtain them, they will "own" them and by your rules, they do not have to give them back because they enjoy the benefits of being there early. In other words, in 4 or 5 years, 1998 may be considered to be "early". - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E1B5B833.F998F495-- --=_E1B5B833.F899F594-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:12 1998 Message-Id: <00001A79@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:06:54 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Who is in the "community" -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E1B5B833.FA9BF796" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E1B5B833.FA9BF796 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E1B5B833.FA9BF796 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:22 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Who is in the "community" -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E1B5B833.FB9AF697" --=_E1B5B833.FB9AF697 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E1B5B833.FB9AF697 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA24402; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:39:32 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F4D.B98A4D60@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:34:03 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F4D.B98A4D60@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: Who is in the "community" Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:34:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:02 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @ @> How should future /8 allocations be handled ? @ @Under whatever guideline accepted by the community at the time. Can you clarify who is in the so-called "community" ? Would that be Jon Postel (aka IANA) and the ITAG ? What about RIPE, ARIN and APNIC ? What about AT&T, MCI, and SPRINT ? What about Cuba, Iraq and Libya ? Who is in this "community" and who determines that ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E1B5B833.FB9AF697-- --=_E1B5B833.FA9BF796-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:12 1998 Message-Id: <00001A77@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:06:56 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E6B2BF34.F495F998" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E6B2BF34.F495F998 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E6B2BF34.F495F998 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:25 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E6B2BF34.F594F899" --=_E6B2BF34.F594F899 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E6B2BF34.F594F899 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA24454; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:04:04 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F51.270D3F20@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:58:36 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F51.270D3F20@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:58:34 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:37 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- @Hash: SHA1 @ @> Would it be "OK" for AT&T to sell someone a low-speed connection @> and give them a large block ? @>=20 @> Can that someone then advertise that block on other networks ? @>=20 @> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02336.html @ @> What if the price of the low-speed connection and the large block @> are less than the price of doing business with ARIN ? @ @That is a choice that=20 @ @A) AT&T will have to make with their addresses bearing in mind that @once they run out of their /8 then it is probaby unlikely that they @will get any more address space from the regional registries or IANA. @ What does that mean ? Why wouldn't AT&T get more, just like everyone else ? Are you saying this is a subjective process ? @B) The other ISP's in the world choose to accept the announcements. Why wouldn't they accept those announcements if it provides a way to get rid of packets ? There seems to be a common misconception on the Internet that some companies do not like connections and extra routes. This is not the case if they can use those routes to get rid of packets, as opposed to attracting packets. People seem to think it is "cool" to attract a lot of traffic. This is not smart, the key is to get rid of packets not attract them. Also, it is best to get rid of the packets via the route that will deliver them in the most efficient manner. This helps the overall performance of the net. It does not one any good to keep passing packets around so that everyone gets a chance to handle it to look like a cool place that does a lot of routing. The aura of MAE-East is not a good thing. I hear people say, "our traffic goes through MAE-East" as if that is a plus. In many cases, that is hardly a bonus. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E6B2BF34.F594F899-- --=_E6B2BF34.F495F998-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:13 1998 Message-Id: <00001A7D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:06:56 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RFC 2008 -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E6B2BF34.F697FB9A" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E6B2BF34.F697FB9A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E6B2BF34.F697FB9A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:24 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RFC 2008 -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E6B2BF34.F796FA9B" --=_E6B2BF34.F796FA9B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E6B2BF34.F796FA9B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA24434; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:53:34 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F4F.AF694E60@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:48:05 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F4F.AF694E60@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: RFC 2008 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:48:04 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:02 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @ @As the author of the RFC/BCP suggesting returning unused space, I @obviously advocate people doing it. There is great merit in it, @especially in the "older" 128/3 and 192/8 spaces where blocks of @unused and returned space can be put together to lower the number of @announced routes. I firmly believe that if a company is out of @business (or a person who is dead) then the addresses should be @reclaimed. @ I assume that by "RFC" you mean one of those IETF documents. Clearly, other organizations larger or smaller than the IETF can also have RFCs. Continuing, is your proposal compatible with RFC 2008 ? @@@ http://www.isi.edu/rfc-editor/catagories/rfc-best.html rfc2008 Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet = Routing @@@@@@@ Does ARIN have to conform to RFC 2008 ? What if the ARIN Board decides not to ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E6B2BF34.F796FA9B-- --=_E6B2BF34.F697FB9A-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:13 1998 Message-Id: <00001A81@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:06:59 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E7B3BE35.F091FD9C" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E7B3BE35.F091FD9C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E7B3BE35.F091FD9C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:27 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E7B3BE35.F190FC9D" --=_E7B3BE35.F190FC9D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E7B3BE35.F190FC9D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA24468; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:07:22 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F51.9D23F5A0@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:01:54 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F51.9D23F5A0@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:01:53 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:37 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @ @> Once they obtain them, they will "own" @> them and by your rules, they do not have to give them back @> because they enjoy the benefits of being there early. In other @> words, in 4 or 5 years, 1998 may be considered to be "early". @ @I have never used the word "own" when refering to IP addresses. I use @the words allocate and assign. Every ISP that I know specifies that @addresses are not portable. The overall block still remains part of @the upstreams allocation.=20 @ You might use those words, but RFC 2008 uses the words "own". @@@ http://www.isi.edu/rfc-editor/catagories/rfc-best.html rfc2008 Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet = Routing "While it has never been explicitly stated that various Internet Registries use the "address ownership" allocation policy, it has always been assumed (and practiced)." @@@@@@@ Does your so-called "community" abide by RFC 2008 ? BTW, Who was in that "community" again ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E7B3BE35.F190FC9D-- --=_E7B3BE35.F091FD9C-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:14 1998 Message-Id: <00001A87@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:00 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: RFC 2008 -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E7B3BE35.F293FF9E" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E7B3BE35.F293FF9E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E7B3BE35.F293FF9E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:29 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: RFC 2008 -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E7B3BE35.F392FE9F" --=_E7B3BE35.F392FE9F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E7B3BE35.F392FE9F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA24479; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:10:02 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F51.FC468340@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:04:33 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F51.FC468340@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'pjnesser@nesser.com'" Cc: "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "arin-council@arin.net" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: RE: RFC 2008 Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:04:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:51 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @ @As I (and numerous others) have said in the past, if for some reason @the ARIN board (or the RIPE board or the APNIC board) all go insane @and try and do things in a way that is not in the best interest of the @Internet, then they won't be accepted in the future. @ Lets assume for a moment, a worst case scenario... What does your "community" do ? BTW...Who was in that "community" again ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E7B3BE35.F392FE9F-- --=_E7B3BE35.F293FF9E-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:14 1998 Message-Id: <00001A85@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:02 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E4B0BD36.EC8DE180" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E4B0BD36.EC8DE180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E4B0BD36.EC8DE180 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:30 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E4B0BD36.ED8CE081" --=_E4B0BD36.ED8CE081 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E4B0BD36.ED8CE081 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA24541; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:42:15 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F56.7C8751C0@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:36:46 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F56.7C8751C0@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:36:45 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 4:05 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @ @In you scenerio AT&T sold them a low speed link. If they have to get @their packets throught that link then I doubt any ISP would trade a @/19 for having to route all of their traffic through that 56k link.=20 @You also make numerous mistakes in your perception of how packets are @delivered and how multihomed sites actually work. =20 @ You seem to be missing the key point here. I suggest that you look at this thread on the NANOG list. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02336.html The point is that people would buy the connection to get the allocation and then they would advertise that block in other places. That advertisement may be on a network with advanced routing or on the more common BGP back-bone. It does not matter. The point is that as IPv4 blocks become expensive or not available, companies with those blocks can sell a minimal service to companies that really want the blocks and have less interest in the connection. Their traffic would not flow over that connection if they get the block advertised or routed in the right places. As I said, that connection could be simply a back-up or throw-away. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E4B0BD36.ED8CE081-- --=_E4B0BD36.EC8DE180-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:14 1998 Message-Id: <00001A82@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:05 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Is ARIN an Organization of Public Trust ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E4B0BD36.EE8FE382" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E4B0BD36.EE8FE382 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E4B0BD36.EE8FE382 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:31 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Is ARIN an Organization of Public Trust ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E4B0BD36.EF8EE283" --=_E4B0BD36.EF8EE283 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E4B0BD36.EF8EE283 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA24552; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:46:14 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F57.0ADED560@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:40:45 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F57.0ADED560@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'pjnesser@nesser.com'" Cc: "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "arin-council@arin.net" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" , "'ARIN list'" Subject: Is ARIN an Organization of Public Trust ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:40:44 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 4:16 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: =20 @ @How does any community deal with an organization of public trust that @fails to meet it obligations? @ Do you consider ARIN to be "an organization of public trust"...? If so, how do you arrive at that conclusion ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E4B0BD36.EF8EE283-- --=_E4B0BD36.EE8FE382-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:15 1998 Message-Id: <00001A89@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:06 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who is in the "community" -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E5B1BC37.E889E584" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E5B1BC37.E889E584 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E5B1BC37.E889E584 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:33 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who is in the "community" -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E5B1BC37.E988E485" --=_E5B1BC37.E988E485 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E5B1BC37.E988E485 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA24581; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:54:19 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F58.2C033820@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 16:48:50 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F58.2C033820@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: RE: Who is in the "community" Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:48:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 4:13 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: =20 @ @The comunity is a social concept that is difficult to quantify. To me @the community is the people who have a direct stake in the health of @the Internet. ISP's, businesses, researches, and all of the users.=20 @Some of that community is represented by government officials as part @of their role as representatives of their constituents. =20 @ Philip, I think that you should consider becoming a member of the ARIN Advisory Council. There appears to be an opening. http://www.arin.net/council.html You seem to have what it takes to make sure that ARIN turns out to be what the community wants. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E5B1BC37.E988E485-- --=_E5B1BC37.E889E584-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:15 1998 Message-Id: <00001A8B@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:07 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E5B1BC37.EA8BE786" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E5B1BC37.EA8BE786 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E5B1BC37.EA8BE786 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:34 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E5B1BC37.EB8AE687" --=_E5B1BC37.EB8AE687 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E5B1BC37.EB8AE687 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA24605; Thu, 14 May 1998 17:09:31 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F5A.4B139280@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 17:04:01 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F5A.4B139280@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:04:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 4:05 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @> @ @> @> Would it be "OK" for AT&T to sell someone a low-speed connection @> @> and give them a large block ? @> @>=20 @> @> Can that someone then advertise that block on other networks ? @> @>=20 @> @> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02336.html @> @ @> @> What if the price of the low-speed connection and the large block @> @> are less than the price of doing business with ARIN ? @> @ @> @That is a choice that=20 @> @ @> @A) AT&T will have to make with their addresses bearing in mind that @> @once they run out of their /8 then it is probaby unlikely that they @> @will get any more address space from the regional registries or @IANA. @> @ @>=20 @> What does that mean ? @> Why wouldn't AT&T get more, just like everyone else ? @>=20 @> Are you saying this is a subjective process ? @>=20 @ @There are allocation guidelines that the registries follow. If AT&T @did something stupid (like giving you a /24 if you switch long @distance service) then I doubt the registries would give them more @space. Everyone else does NOT get more space if they though away the @space they have and do not follow the accepted utilization guidelines. @=20 Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? I doubt if they obtained their current /8 from one of the regional registries. Some of those registries have not been around for very long and I doubt if AT&T pays much attention to them. With the proposed IANA Inc. wouldn't this all become a business transaction that has nothing to do with what happened with someone's /24 ? Do you really think the IANA Inc. is going to go to each AT&T customer to find out how they obtained their space ? Why would AT&T tell them if they could do that ? BTW...AT&T above is just one example, any one of the large companies (DEC, HP, Apple, Xerox, etc.) could be substituted for these examples. I do not think it matters exactly what business they are in. For example, what if large IPv4 blocks come with copiers/printers from Xerox ? Can people peel those off and use them in other places or will they be tied to copiers/printers ? Who do you think is going to "police" all this ? Are you being realistic in your assumptions ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E5B1BC37.EB8AE687-- --=_E5B1BC37.EA8BE786-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:16 1998 Message-Id: <00001A8E@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:10 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_EABEB338.E485E988" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_EABEB338.E485E988 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_EABEB338.E485E988 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:36 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_EABEB338.E584E889" --=_EABEB338.E584E889 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_EABEB338.E584E889 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA24754; Thu, 14 May 1998 18:53:49 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7F68.DDD08AC0@webster.unir.net>; Thu, 14 May 1998 18:48:21 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7F68.DDD08AC0@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "arin-council@arin.net" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "BBURR@ntia.doc.gov" , "Ira Magaziner" Subject: RE: Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:48:19 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday, May 14, 1998 5:49 PM, Philip J. Nesser II[SMTP:pjnesser@nesser= .com] wrote: @>=20 @> Wouldn't AT&T go directly to the IANA ? @ @And what makes you think that the IANA would give them more addresses @in the face of blatant misuse of the ones they had? @ Philip, Blatant misuse is a subjective decision. What may be blatant misuse to you might make perfect sense to some business people or the Board of Directors of some company. Who is going to decide what blatant misuse is ? Likewise, we have not brought governments into the discussion. Do you really think that ARIN is qualified to deal with the various governments in the Caribbean, Africa and South America ? How did ARIN decide that this was part of their "territory" ? I have a feeling that AT&T or some of the other multi-national companies would have a much better chance of dealing with a broad territory like that. I am surprised your "community" would not recognize that and would be concerned about these issues. Since you appear to be quite happy with the ARIN situation, I again suggest that you consider becoming part of the Advisory Council. I think they are going to need people like yourself who are willing to make those subjective decisions. That is a slippery slope that I do not imagine many people will want to go down. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_EABEB338.E584E889-- --=_EABEB338.E485E988-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:16 1998 Message-Id: <00001A8D@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:12 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Re: comments on legal documents -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_EABEB338.E687EB8A" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_EABEB338.E687EB8A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_EABEB338.E687EB8A Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:38 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Re: comments on legal documents -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_EABEB338.E786EA8B" --=_EABEB338.E786EA8B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_EABEB338.E786EA8B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA27335; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:14:10 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7FFA.32F35000@webster.unir.net>; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:08:40 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7FFA.32F35000@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "APNIC-TALK@apnic.net" , "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Adam Todd'" , "'Bala Pillai'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "davidc@apnic.net" , "ec-satou@kdd.co.jp" , "intl-wg@nic.ad.jp" Cc: "ip-wg@nic.ad.jp" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'Jeff Williams'" , "kdd-hk@ats.sjk.kdd.co.jp" , "mo-abe@kdd.co.jp" Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Re: comments on legal documents Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:08:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday, May 15, 1998 8:59 AM, MARUYAMA Naomasa[SMTP:maruyama@nic.ad.jp] = wrote: @This is N. Maruyama, a vice president of JPNIC. @ @>From: @>Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:01:24 +0900 @ @>There seems to be different use of the term "member" in each document. @ @This is, I feel, a crucial point in these documents. A legal advisor @of JPNIC is now studying these documents. His study is not yet @finished, but he gave me a rough description of the proposed APNIC @structure:=20 @ @"Members of APNIC Pty Ltd" are same as shareholders of APNIC Pty Ltd. @They elect/remove "Directors of APNIC Pty Ltd". @"Meeting of Directors of APNIC Pty Ltd" is empowered to create/remove @"APNIC" as a special committee of "APNIC Pty Ltd". @"APNIC" has AGM(Annual General Meeting)" as its organ which consists @of "APNIC Members". AGM elects Executive Council members. @And EC members elect DG(Director General). @ @David wrote that APNIC Pty Ltd will issue only one share. So, the @above description automatically implies that the structure of new @APNIC is @ @ AUTOCRACY, @ @not democracy by APNIC members. @ @Here, I would like to ask all the APNIC-talk subscribers: @ @ Do we want AUTOCRACY for APNIC? @ @Of course, I don't want it. I prefer democracy for APNIC. @ @This autocratic structure is my main concern, but another concern @for me is whether or not "APNIC Pty Ltd" is non-profit organization @under Australian law. The document states that it is non-profit, but @this may never be the answer. Whether or not an organization be @considered by the government and lawyers to be non-profit depends, I @believe, on the law on which the organization is grounded. What is the @name of a law "Pty. Ltd." grounded on? @ @In Japan, probono (legal term for "non-profit") organizations, like @JPNIC, are grounded on the Civil code, whereas most commercial @companies are grounded on the commercial law, and I believe there is @similar legal structure in Australia. @ @I know the current documents are rather direct imitation of the legal @documents for the company in the Seychelles, but why do we need to @imitate them? I understand that we built the company for the sake of @some convenience, and we admitted it was commercial under the @Seychelles law, but the situation in Australia must be different. @ @---- @N. Maruyama (Vice President of JPNIC) @maruyama@nic.ad.jp @* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * @* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request@apnic.net * @ @ Your bravery to make these comments restores my faith in humanity. I have had similar concerns. People will note that my questions went un-answered. One of the disturbing things about many of the matters surrounding APNIC, ARIN and to a lesser extent RIPE is the autocratic base upon which the structures are built. In the U.S. I believe that the U.S. Government is trying to change this and I have confidence they will. Many agencies of the U.S. Government are involved. One of the agencies that needs to become more involved is the U.S. Government's Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They grant approve non-profit status for companies according to the following information. No one, including the IRS, can explain how ARIN qualifies. Yet, they claim they are non-profit on their web site . http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/index.html http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bus-orgs.html @@@@ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bl-req.html "No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit or organized to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit (even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be self-sustaining)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ARIN also claims to cover the Caribbean, Africa and South America but there does not seem to be many people from those regions that agree or participate. They go to RIPE and other places to get their IP addresses. In the Caribbean, it is easier to get IPv4 addresses from AT&T, than ARIN. AT&T has plenty of addresses: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/nanog/msg02336.html In the IPv8 Plan, the functions provided by ARIN, RIPE and APNIC are distributed fairly around the world via a simple structured root. I have suggested that the people in the Asia/Pacific regions (G4, G5, and G6) work together to take their destiny into their own hands. By working in smaller "Round Tables" you can come to a local consensus and then have delegates bring that consensus to a global Round Table for final decisions. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt One of the problems with the past is that APNIC is based on IP addresses only. This decouples the organization from the more human domain names. RIPE is headed in the other direction. You might want to study what they are doing. In my opinion, they have the most potential for avoiding the autocratic structure that seems to follow from anything the previous IANA created. This will all change soon. The U.S. Government is going to take control of the new IANA. The U.S. has a long history of democracy and I have confidence something good will come from that process. Unfortunately, it could take a long time to materialize. You have decisions to make now. I suggest that people from the various regions organize themselves to start making room for everyone at the Round Table and to start making decisions. What better place to do that than here on the Internet... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_EABEB338.E786EA8B-- --=_EABEB338.E687EB8A-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:17 1998 Message-Id: <00001A91@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:12 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Comments on the LIR WG and its role -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_EBBFB239.E081ED8C" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_EBBFB239.E081ED8C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_EBBFB239.E081ED8C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:40 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Comments on the LIR WG and its role -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_EBBFB239.E180EC8D" --=_EBBFB239.E180EC8D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_EBBFB239.E180EC8D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA27374; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:39:59 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD7FFD.CEA95820@webster.unir.net>; Fri, 15 May 1998 12:34:30 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD7FFD.CEA95820@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "lir-wg@ripe.net" , "'Mike Norris'" Cc: "'Antitrust List'" , "'antitrust@usdoj.gov'" , "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'lsundro@nsf.gov'" Cc: "'ARIN list'" Subject: RE: Comments on the LIR WG and its role Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:34:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday, May 15, 1998 5:30 AM, Mike Norris[SMTP:Mike.Norris@heanet.ie] = wrote: @ @> Are the "highly competitive" LIRs "for profit" or "non profit" ? @ @Most, but not all, would be 'for profit'. The main exceptions would be @national A&R networks (such as HEAnet). @ In your opinion, how can ARIN qualify for non-profit status with the U.S. Government's Internal Revenue Service when clearly this is an industry "ordinarily carried on for profit". =3D=3D=3D http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/index.html http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bus-orgs.html @@@@ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bl-req.html "No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit or organized to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit (even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be self-sustaining)." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Also, a company can not qualify with the IRS just because they are a "cooperative" and spend all of the money they bring in. This is not the definition of non-profit, yet some people seem to think it is. When revenues go up they raise their salaries, buy larger computers, add higher bandwidth connections and take more trips, first-class, around the world. Non-profits are supposed to spend their time and money on community out reach, to inclusive processes. They are supposed to be educating people. They should be working to help employ the handicap and other socially beneficial activities which a for-profit company may not want to support. There are hundreds of things non-profit companies should be doing. Raking in money to pay high salaries to people should not be the primary goal, especially when the company is granted a virtual monopoly on a large part of the marketplace that has been locked-in with no place to go, at least in the U.S. It is good to see that RIPE in Europe appears to be more mature in its development. I have a feeling that the U.S. Government is going to help sort these issues out in the U.S. in the coming weeks. Just because the NSF helped to create a structure that does not appear to conform to IRS regulations does not mean that it is cast in stone. In a democracy like the U.S. the people get to have input on the final arrangements that are made. The Internet is a great place for people to circulate their views. One of these days people in the U.S. Government may start to use it more actively. Until that happens, we have to live with the current inefficient situation where people fly around the world to hold a 2 hour meeting. That is one of the reasons that the decisions take so long. Hopefully that will change as more people use the Internet. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_EBBFB239.E180EC8D-- --=_EBBFB239.E081ED8C-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:18 1998 Message-Id: <00001A95@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:15 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Clarification, Retraction & Apology -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_EBBFB239.E283EF8E" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_EBBFB239.E283EF8E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_EBBFB239.E283EF8E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:41 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Clarification, Retraction & Apology -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E8BCB13A.E382EE8F" --=_E8BCB13A.E382EE8F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E8BCB13A.E382EE8F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA27576; Fri, 15 May 1998 14:39:51 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD800E.8D8D7F40@webster.unir.net>; Fri, 15 May 1998 14:34:22 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD800E.8D8D7F40@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "amr@chaos.com" , "antitrust@essential.org" , "antitrust@usdoj.gov" , "arin-council@arin.net" , "arin-members@arin.net" , "bburr@ntia.doc.gov" To: "cook@cookreport.com" , "dmitchell@NSF.GOV" , "hank@rein.com" , "heath@isoc.org" , "ira_c_magaziner@oa.eop.gov" , "jwkczidl@ix.netcom.com" To: "'Karl Denninger'" , "marcs@ZNEP.COM" , "marquis@roble.com" , "michael@traveller.com" , "naipr@arin.net" , "postel@ISI.EDU" To: "skidmor@nwnexus.com" , "weisberg@texoma.net" Subject: RE: Clarification, Retraction & Apology Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:34:21 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday, May 15, 1998 1:44 PM, Karl Denninger[SMTP:karl@MCS.NET] wrote: @=20 @At all times, my messages related to ARIN and its operations are and @have been in fact undertaken with the best interests of ARIN, in good @faith, and in the interests of ARIN as an *ongoing* concern charged with @the public management and oversight of IPv4 resources. =20 @ Many people and companies have their "IPv4 resources" tied up with ARIN. There is no doubt that people have to work to help ARIN continue. In my opinion, this can only happen if ARIN becomes MORE open and MORE inclusive. When ARIN was formed, people were promised that this would be the case. I hope that these forums help to encourage open communication. That is the Internet way... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E8BCB13A.E382EE8F-- --=_EBBFB239.E283EF8E-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:18 1998 Message-Id: <00001A93@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:17 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E8BCB13A.DCBDD1B0" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E8BCB13A.DCBDD1B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E8BCB13A.DCBDD1B0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:41 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E8BCB13A.DDBCD0B1" --=_E8BCB13A.DDBCD0B1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E8BCB13A.DDBCD0B1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA28214; Sat, 16 May 1998 01:20:07 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8067.FE8D45A0@webster.unir.net>; Sat, 16 May 1998 01:14:37 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD8067.FE8D45A0@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: RE: Who owns 12.0.0.0 ? AT&T or ARIN ? Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 01:14:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday, May 15, 1998 7:17 PM, Jon Lewis[SMTP:jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net] = wrote: @On Thu, 14 May 1998, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @> According to the following, AT&T is now allocating IPv4 addresses @> in the 12.0.0.0 range and companies are advertising them on other @> networks. @ @This happens all the time when a company multihomes but doesn't have its @own CIDR block. @ The networks and routers do not know anything about block "ownership". It makes no difference whether a company has what they perceive to be their own CIDR block or not. From their point of view, they have their own block and it just so happens to come from the AT&T 12.0.0.0 registry. The fact that AT&T may have a direct route to the customer via some low-speed token connection may not be as important as having a large and stable block. In fact, there is nothing technically stopping AT&T from re-routing = certain CIDR blocks to other networks where the customer has a preferred connection. The customers with those CIDR blocks could also advertise them on their own to other large providers as if they are their own. The large providers can end up with specific routes for the CIDR blocks and essentially a default route to AT&T for everything else in 12.0.0.0. Let's look at a situation where a customer has a 28.8 dial-up connection to AT&T and for some reason because of business relationships the AT&T 12.0.0.0 Registry allocates a /16 to the customer. AT&T could find out from that customer that they have T1s to MCI and Sprint. Traffic arriving at AT&T because of AT&T's 12.0.0.0 advertisement could be sent to Sprint and/or MCI which could each have a specific route for that /16 in the 12.0.0.0 range. Sprint and/or MCI would route it to one of the T1s. In this case, no traffic would flow to the customer via the 28.8 dial-up connection. In this scenario, the customer would appear to "own" the /16 block and MCI and Sprint would route to the T1s. As long as AT&T was happy with the business arrangement resulting in the /16 allocation they might be willing not to be concerned about the fact that there is a low-speed connection that is not really used. One thing for sure, if the routers are set up properly, they do not know who owns which block, they just know where to send the packets. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM --=_E8BCB13A.DDBCD0B1-- --=_E8BCB13A.DCBDD1B0-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:19 1998 Message-Id: <00001A97@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:18 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: On APNIC, ARIN and "non-profit things" -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E9BDB03B.DEBFD3B2" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E9BDB03B.DEBFD3B2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E9BDB03B.DEBFD3B2 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:43 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: On APNIC, ARIN and "non-profit things" -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E9BDB03B.DFBED2B3" --=_E9BDB03B.DFBED2B3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E9BDB03B.DFBED2B3 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA00185; Sat, 16 May 1998 06:59:25 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8097.6512F480@webster.unir.net>; Sat, 16 May 1998 06:53:56 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD8097.6512F480@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'Adam Todd'" , "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" , "'MARUYAMA Naomasa'" Subject: On APNIC, ARIN and "non-profit things" Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 06:53:54 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hopefully people interested in the future of ARIN have been following the APNIC evolution closely. For those not familiar with APNIC, it was incorporated in the off-shore haven of the Seychelles and was operated primarily out of Japan. It is now being moved to Australia. There are some interesting comments below regarding the fact that APNIC in Australia will NOT likely be non-profit. One of the reasons cited is that APNIC might then be required to do non-profit things. As the APNIC operator David Conrad points out: "Any attempt for APNIC to do non-profit things would be in violation of its charter and "bad things" would happen." Again, for those not familiar with APNIC. David Conrad has been in the process of resigning from APNIC for quite a long time. He has cited as one of his reasons that he is a technical person and APNIC needs to have a person with a business background at the helm. APNIC is currently seeking such a person. As I have stated in the past, I do not understand why APNIC would not have stayed in Japan while a new NIC is started in Australia. The APNIC employees in Japan would then not be forced to leave their jobs and/or move to Australia. Also, assets from the old APNIC are apparently being moved to the new APNIC with little concern for their value. As soon as the IANA Inc. is formed, there might be better leadership in the decision making in this area. The U.S. Government via the DOD and other agencies will have to decide how the IPv4 resources are allocated to regions of the world.=20 Allocations can also be made to these "for-profit" companies, and then the companies move from one region to the next or the notion of regions disappears. This is one more reason why I think that ARIN should be converted to "for-profit" status to be consistent with Europe and Asia/Pacific. The new IANA is supposed to be non-profit and maybe that will be where "non-profit things" are done. Only time will tell and the time is soon...real soon... In the IPv8 Address Plan we do not have this problem because the address spaces move with the TLD authorities. Some of those are stable and land based and some are based solely in cyberspace. This supports a variety of business models including non-profit and for-profit and voluntary cooperatives. (see http://www.DOT.AM as an example) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Jim Fleming =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ---------- From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 4:50 AM To: maruyama@nic.ad.jp Cc: APNIC-TALK@apnic.net; ip-wg@nic.ad.jp; intl-wg@nic.ad.jp; = kdd-hk@ats.sjk.kdd.co.jp; ec-satou@kdd.co.jp; mo-abe@kdd.co.jp Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: comments on legal documents Maruyama-san, Thanks _very_ much for the comments. >This is, I feel, a crucial point in these documents. A legal advisor >of JPNIC is now studying these documents.=20 It may be best then to wait until the analysis is complete, however I will hazard a guess or two (and, of course, forward your comments/questions to our lawyers for their official comment). Previous disclaimers apply. >"Members of APNIC Pty Ltd" are same as shareholders of APNIC Pty Ltd. >They elect/remove "Directors of APNIC Pty Ltd". >"Meeting of Directors of APNIC Pty Ltd" is empowered to create/remove >"APNIC" as a special committee of "APNIC Pty Ltd". >"APNIC" has AGM(Annual General Meeting)" as its organ which consists >of "APNIC Members". AGM elects Executive Council members. >And EC members elect DG(Director General). Yes, this is what I tried to describe to Obata-san >David wrote that APNIC Pty Ltd will issue only one share. So, the >above description automatically implies that the structure of new >APNIC is > AUTOCRACY, >not democracy by APNIC members. Technically, I suppose it could be argued (although I'd disagree). One alternative structure would be to issue shares to all members which means = a large amount of additional complications (e.g., logistics of actually issuing shares, how to handle the shares in cases of company sales, mergers, and accquisitions, how to handle replacement of shares, etc). = All seemed a bit pointless to my advisors when the original incorporation was done (and I'll note that despite posting the M&A of the Seychelles = company, no one actually made any comments on this issue). Instead, the proposal is that the single share be held in trust for the EC which represents the members. See the Trust Statement for the specific details. Since the EC is democratically elected by the membership and the share holder, by the requirements of the Trust Statement, acts on behalf = of and for the EC, I would contend that the structure is NOT an autocracy and would be interested in seeing your counter-arguments. Note however that your analysis is quite true for the existing APNIC structure. It is indeed an autocracy, and this is THE most critical wart that needs to be fixed in APNIC's structure as it relies on the goodwill and honesty of the single share holder to insure APNIC acts on behalf of its members. In retrospect, it was a mistake to accept this structure and I apologize to the membership. >Here, I would like to ask all the APNIC-talk subscribers: > Do we want AUTOCRACY for APNIC? >Of course, I don't want it. I prefer democracy for APNIC. As would, I suspect, everyone. Thus my attempts to insure the new structure is more aligned with this requirement. >This autocratic structure is my main concern, but another concern >for me is whether or not "APNIC Pty Ltd" is non-profit organization >under Australian law.=20 As I believe I explained in the meeting in Manila when you brought this = up, it is my understanding that the concept of "non-profit" applies only to charitable organizations in Australia and APNIC has not applied for charitable status, thus I believe it safe to say that APNIC is _not_ a non-profit organization under Australian law. It is, however, tax exempt for all member derived income (a little over = 98% of our income) by virtue of the Australian interpretation of "the doctrine of mutuality". >The document states that it is non-profit, but >this may never be the answer.=20 On the contrary, I would contend that given APNIC's Articles of Association= EXPLICITLY define it to be non-profit and that it may never "declare or = pay dividends" (Articles, clause 15.1), whether or not the Australian government treats APNIC as a "non-profit" is essentially irrelevant. Any attempt for APNIC to do non-profit things would be in violation of its charter and "bad things" would happen. >What is the name of a law "Pty. Ltd." grounded on? the Corporations Law. >In Japan, probono (legal term for "non-profit") organizations, like >JPNIC, are grounded on the Civil code, whereas most commercial >companies are grounded on the commercial law, and I believe there is >similar legal structure in Australia. No idea. >I know the current documents are rather direct imitation of the legal >documents for the company in the Seychelles, but why do we need to >imitate them?=20 Primarily convenience and the speed in which the everything can be finalized. Also, with the exception of the wart you have noted, I do subscribe to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. =20 However, the membership is free to _completely_ redraw any and/or all aspects of APNIC in any way they choose. As the sole voting director or APNIC Pty Ltd, I hereby (hopefully unnecessarily ) state publicly and for the record that I will (of course) accede to the wishes of the majority of the membership in however they would like to draw up the legal documents. That is, after all, the whole reason I spent a considerable amount of time hacking the output of MS Word ("Save As HTML" doesn't) into readable HTML documents and placed them on the APNIC web server. Regards, -drc * APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request@apnic.net * --=_E9BDB03B.DFBED2B3-- --=_E9BDB03B.DEBFD3B2-- From - Tue May 19 16:40:19 1998 Message-Id: <00001AA3@ntiahq3.ntia.doc.gov> Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 16:07:22 -0400 From: "Karen Rose" To: Herschel Gelman Subject: APNIC and ARIN -Forwarded -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E9BDB03B.D8B9D5B4" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_E9BDB03B.D8B9D5B4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline -K --=_E9BDB03B.D8B9D5B4 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:57:44 -0400 From: "Becky Burr" To: Karen Rose Subject: APNIC and ARIN -Forwarded Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_E9BDB03B.D9B8D4B5" --=_E9BDB03B.D9B8D4B5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --=_E9BDB03B.D9B8D4B5 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from webster.unir.net ([207.32.159.5]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA00206; Sat, 16 May 1998 07:09:08 -0500 Received: by webster.unir.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD8098.C04B8140@webster.unir.net>; Sat, 16 May 1998 07:03:38 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD8098.C04B8140@webster.unir.net> From: Jim Fleming To: "'arin-council@arin.net'" , "'ARIN list'" Cc: "'BBURR@ntia.doc.gov'" , "'Ira Magaziner'" Subject: APNIC and ARIN Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 07:03:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Again, I think that people interested in the future of ARIN should continue to closely track the evolution of APNIC. Unlike David Conrad who clearly indicates that he does not want to use the Internet for open communications, I feel that the Internet is a great vehicle for keeping people informed and for allowing all people to decide what they want to read and what they do not want to read. When ARIN was created David Conrad was very influential in helping to steer the various directions of the conversations and people claimed that ARIN was modeled after APNIC. The pricing of ARIN was claimed to be based on APNIC's pricing. As APNIC evolves, so may ARIN at least until the IANA Inc. gets put into place to oversee all of the IPv4 address space. Hopefully the new IANA Inc. will be here soon...real soon... Jim Fleming =3D=3D=3D=3D ---------- From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 5:21 AM To: maruyama@nic.ad.jp Cc: APNIC-TALK@apnic.net; intl-wg@nic.ad.jp; ec-satou@kdd.co.jp;=20 intl-wg@nic.ad.jp; ip-wg@nic.ad.jp; kdd-hk@ats.sjk.kdd.co.jp;=20 mo-abe@kdd.co.jp Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: [JPNIC intl-wg 224] Why is APNIC Moving ? Maruyama-san, >I think the following points were explained in previous APNIC >meetings: > >1. It is rather easy to establish a non-profit organization in AU. This was not one of the considerations of the search undertaken for a new location for APNIC. I actually have no idea how easy it is to establish a non-profit organization in AU. >2. APNIC will probably gain tax exempt status in AU. APNIC (the Seychelles company) has already obtained tax exempt status. We cannot apply for tax exempt status for APNIC Pty Ltd until all the legal documents have been finalized (thus the interest in speed). I should probably note that major changes to APNIC structure may result in significant delays in getting the tax exempt status from the Australian = Tax Office where as keeping the existing structure would make getting the tax exemption "a non-issue" (according to our advisors in AU, KPMG Peat=20 Marwick). >3. The cost for maintaining APNIC office will be reasonable in AU. More specifically, the cost of doing business in Australia (taking into account various factors including office rental, utilities, telecoms, cost of living, and in particular, taxation on APNIC's surplus) was found to be the least expensive. In addition, there were issues related to ease of obtaining visas, transparency of laws and business practices, quality of life issues, Internet connectivity issues, governmental policies with respect to information/censorship, and a few others I can't think of off hand. >I think we must recheck these points in the current discussion of >legal documents. >From my perspective, these would appear to be unrelated to the legal documents, however that is only my opinion. As mentioned in my previous mail, the membership is free to raise, discuss, alter, etc. any aspect of APNIC at their choosing. >>Do regional registries generally move when one >>person wants to change jobs or careers ? >I'm afraid this is offensive for Anne and David. Yes, it is, but it _very_ typical of Fleming -- always accusation by insinuation -- and one of the reasons I filter him out. Please note that my filters work on ANY header line containing a reference to Fleming or his domain name, thus if you wish me to respond to mail that is in some way referring to something Fleming has written, please make = sure you remove references to him in the headers. My apologies for the inconvenience, but I have found it best. I should also note that my silence in response to Fleming's accusations, insinuations, and/or flights of fancy should in no way be taken as tacit agreement (or even disagreement, though it is more likely :-)), but merely that I haven't seen his messages. >I believe they >were/are/will be willing to contribute APNIC, and they thought AU a >good place for it. Yes. My recommendation was based on the research I undertook over a = period of 6 months and the results of which were presented in the Kuala Lumpur APNIC meeting. My recommendation was submitted to the Executive Council who voted to accept the recommendation. >>What happens to all of the people and their needs >>in Japan, Korea, China, etc. ? >To me, this seems to be an endless dispute. What happens to all of the >people and their needs in India, Iran and Pakistan, in the case APNIC >office stays in Japan? Or people in Japan for that matter :-). >--- I don't like this kind of meaningless >arguing. APNIC must be equal and must maintain good relationship with >all of the members regardless of the distance from its office. Very true. >For >this purpose, I think it's crucially important for APNIC staffs to >take advantage of every opportunities for communication to members, >not merely sitting in front of the terminals. This is one area I believe (since I'm no longer DG, can't be sure... :-)) APNIC will be concentrating on in the future. It is planned that APNIC staff members will hold training classes for members in their countries = and this will provide a good opportunity for the members to actually meet in person (as opposed to over the net) the people that they will be dealing with. I should note that I feel this is much more of a requirement in = this region as opposed to Europe and/or North America and that I was slow to pick up on this. I wish to apologize for not meeting more of the membership in person. Regards, -drc * APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request@apnic.net * --=_E9BDB03B.D9B8D4B5-- --=_E9BDB03B.D8B9D5B4--