May 1998 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Internet Governance and IANA
by postel＠ISI.EDU 26 May '98

26 May '98

Mike Norris: Hello. Your point is well taken and we do understand that. We do expect the regional address registries (RIPE NCC, APNIC, and ARIN) to play a key role in the formation of policies and procedures of the IANA and in selecting the IANA board members. We expect the regional registries will involve their members (such as the Local IRs) in these matters as appropriate. --jon.

1 0

Re: Internet Governance and IANA
by Mike Norris 26 May '98

26 May '98

Daniel whatever about name registries, address registries are pretty well structured, and recognised as such, both locally and regionally. Local IRs are involved in the governance of their regional IRs and, thanks to you and your peers, there is close cooperation between the regionals and a high degree of alignment between their respective policies and procedures. There shouldn't be any great difficulty in the interim board acknowledging this and including representation from the regional address registries in the interim board. The regionals are all properly incorporated, albeir outside the USA. I'm sure you've said something like this already. Regards. Mike ---------- > From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg(a)ripe.net> > To: RIPE Local Internet Registries WG <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Internet Governance and IANA > Date: 26 May 1998 10:24 > > ------- Forwarded Message > > Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:35:19 -0700 > From: postel(a)ISI.EDU > To: Daniel.Karrenberg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: governance > > An update from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). > > IANA is continuing to provide the neutral, central coordinating > functions for the global Internet. > > As we await the United States government's final statement on the > "Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses" > (also known as the "Green Paper"), we are in the process of > reorganizing and restructuring the IANA organization. This process > will create an independent, not-for-profit corporation. The new IANA > will establish separate offices from the University of Southern > California and its Information Sciences Institute, where IANA is now > located. > > We are selecting legal representation and preparing initial bylaws and > articles of incorporation. The bylaws are being constructed to allow > for international representation on the board of directors by address > registries, domain name registries and registrars, protocol > organizations, and the user/industry community. Since the deadline for > having this organized may not permit a fully representative board to be > in place initially, we expect to create a transitional board who will > then conduct a process to establish the first fully functioning board > with world-wide representation of all constituencies. > > In the spirit of community self-governance, we welcome your advice and > suggestions. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > >

1 0

Internet Governance and IANA
by Daniel Karrenberg 26 May '98

26 May '98

------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:35:19 -0700 From: postel(a)ISI.EDU To: Daniel.Karrenberg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: governance An update from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). IANA is continuing to provide the neutral, central coordinating functions for the global Internet. As we await the United States government's final statement on the "Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses" (also known as the "Green Paper"), we are in the process of reorganizing and restructuring the IANA organization. This process will create an independent, not-for-profit corporation. The new IANA will establish separate offices from the University of Southern California and its Information Sciences Institute, where IANA is now located. We are selecting legal representation and preparing initial bylaws and articles of incorporation. The bylaws are being constructed to allow for international representation on the board of directors by address registries, domain name registries and registrars, protocol organizations, and the user/industry community. Since the deadline for having this organized may not permit a fully representative board to be in place initially, we expect to create a transitional board who will then conduct a process to establish the first fully functioning board with world-wide representation of all constituencies. In the spirit of community self-governance, we welcome your advice and suggestions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: RIPE-141 interface
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 May '98

22 May '98

Dear Dana Hudes, Thank you for your input. This has been discussed in the LIR-WG before. We are working on a better user interface for the hostmaster mailbox. As a first step we have implemented an automatic syntax check and an automatic distribution mail tool. On top of this we will implement a web interface for the ripe-141 tool. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne "Mr. Dana Hudes" <dhudes(a)graphnet.com> writes: * It seems to me that we could benefit from a web interface * to submission of RIPE-141. It would ensure proper formatting * and avoid wrapped lines, make nice tables instead of ascii, etc. * The resultant HTML document would be much easier to look at it. * Submission can still be via e-mail or into the ticketing system * database. No need to create intermediate ticketisation, only * once all is done. A copy should be e-mailed to submitter. * Also authentication could be set up so that only authorized * contacts * for a registry can submit requests. Much better than a mail-from * authentication. * * Opinions? * * Dana Hudes * eu.graphnet * *

2 1

www.Your-name.com + Hosting =$18.95
by Steve 18 May '98

18 May '98

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION & Web Site Hosting ONLY $18.95 A MONTH* !! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MAY SPECIAL Advanced Web Creations, Inc. will host your website with your own domain (www.yourname.com) for only $18.95 a month*! (*Based on 1 year prepayment) or only $24.95 on a month to month basis One time set-up fee reduced to $30 (normally $150). Internic fees apply. ACT NOW! - - CALL (800) 248-0151 <a href="http://www.webcreations.com/whois.html">CLICK HERE TO SEE IF YOUR NAME IS AVAILABLE http://www.webcreations.com/whois.html</a> or go to <a href="http://www.webcreations.com/hosting.html"> http://www.webcreations.com/hosting.html</a> Not quite ready for a Web site? We will reserve your name for you and hold it until you are ready. Domain names are going extremely fast so reserve your name now before its too late! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ************************* i. Web Page Hosting ************************* Advanced Web Creations, Inc., a leading Internet Presence Provider, is currently offering to host your web pages for only $18.95 per month!! ). Our Hosting Service Includes All of the Following: * Domain name registration provided (http://www.your_name.com/) * Unlimited updates via your own FTP account * 50 MB of disk space (approx. 500 to 1000 webpages) * 1000MB Monthly Throughput * Dedicated Multiple Web Servers * Multiple T-3 & T-1 Speed * 5 E-mail addresses (you(a)yourcompany.com) * Web page counters to track traffic * Toll Free help line with initial set-up * No contractual obligation on your behalf. CALL TOLL FREE NOW - 1-800-248-0151 Offer expires May 31, 1998 ********************* Who We Are ********************* With over 5900 clients, Advanced Web Creations, Inc. is one of the LARGEST presence providers in the WORLD! Our business is devoted solely to Web Site Hosting Services. We service companies both large and small. Our full time staff is here to assist you toll free at 1-800-248-0151. Our office hours are: Monday - Friday 9:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST Saturday - 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Our hosting services are among the best values to be found on the Internet. We are not access providers, therefore your site is not shared with multiple dialup accounts. Your site will always be online at super fast speeds. ** YOUR SUCCESS IS OUR SUCCESS!!! ** *************************** Contact Information *************************** Advanced Web Creations, Inc. Fairfield Office Center 387 Passaic Ave. Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: 800-248-0151 Int'l: 1-201-808-5585 E-mail: <a href="mailto:hosting@webcreations.com">hosting(a)webcreations.com</a> WWW: <a href="http://www.webcreations.com">http://www.webcreations.com</a> ********************** CALL NOW! 1-800-248-0151 #################################### REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: To be permanently removed from this mailing list: type: remove (in the Subject Field) mail to: <a href="mailto:remove@webcreations.com">remove(a)webcreations.com</a> #################################### bm 030198 820

1 0

IPv8 Fees
by Jim Fleming 18 May '98

18 May '98

Hank, Sorry to take so long getting back to you. I hope that you understand that your questions about IPv8 fees were not high on the priority list for a reply, partly because of your confusing terminology about "anti-matter IP addresses". Be that as it may, I think that you should now be able to see that IPv8 fees (if any) will be set by the various TLD authorities with the resources. ARIN's fees are separate but now people are getting a better picture of that situation. I hope this answers your question. Jim Fleming ================================================= From: hank(a)interall.co.il (Hank Nussbacher) Subject: RE: The American Registry for Internet Numbers has just been approved Date: 01 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <9707011008.ab07922(a)ietf.org> X-Info: posted by Newsbot 1.3! via usenet(a)uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Newsgroups: info.ietf In article <01BC81CA.4DF96C60(a)webster.unety.net>, JimFleming(a)unety.net (Jim Fleming) wrote: >On Wednesday, June 25, 1997 9:04 PM, William Allen > Simpson[SMTP:wsimpson@greendragon.com] wrote: ><snip> > >@ Anyway, I expect the ARIN fees will settle a bit when the post-partum >@ board is able to evaluate the actual cost of running the registry. >@ > >I hope that they make it clear that the fees only cover >IPv4 addresses. Also, the fees will not cover the upgrade >costs to IPv8 addressing. ARIN has nothing to do with >IPv8 addresses. > How much will you be charging per Stargate? What if I have a Quaser set of IP V9 IP addresses? Do you support anti-matter IP addresses, and if not, why not? Hank =============================================== - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

1 0

The Registry Industry Implosion or Explosion
by Jim Fleming 17 May '98

17 May '98

Charles, Your comments on monopolies[1] can be applied to the Registry Industry which is currently going through its early development years. Of special interest is the notion of *implosion*. I am not sure I agree that implosion comes from size and bloat. Instead, it can come from consumer rejection of a system that taxes them to a point where they walk away or "route around the damage" using one of the Internet slogans. It appears that the Registry Industry is about to go through a serious period of implosion. The U.S. Government has spent a considerable amount of time and energy studying the Registry Industry and they are now poised to start getting it under control. Unfortunately, it appears that their solutions for controlling the industry will NOT result in expanding competition but instead will focus on bringing the small group of insiders into a small common structure that will allow the U.S. Government to watch them with a large spot-light. This will likely make the structure implode because these insiders have not been used to any scrutiny and have moved freely from one place on the planet to another with little or no government supervision. As people try to escape this government scrutiny, the small circle of insiders will get smaller and consumers will have a clearer picture of what is happening under the hot lights of that big spot-light. The combination of consumer exodus and participant exodus makes the structure implode. At several points in this process it appeared that the U.S. Government was going to support helping to make the Registry Industry an *explosive" situation. It should not be surprising that the industry insiders recommended against this because this would have pulled their small power structure apart as the big bang expansion occurred and companies moved away from the small circle of friends that control all of the resources. It should not be surprising that given a choice between an implosive solution and an explosive plan the U.S. Government would opt for the implosive approach. There are several reasons for this: 1. The U.S. Government can control the implosive plan. 2. The implosive approach does not frighten people. 3. The explosive approach could be unpredictable. 4. The explosive approach allows people off the hook. 5. The implosive approach requires far less understanding of the industry on the part of the U.S. Government. 6. The implosive approach does NOT preclude the explosive approach to happen at the edges. The last 2 points are probably the most compelling reasons why the U.S. Government will opt to control the Registry Industry to a point where it implodes as opposed to becoming involved in explosive strategies. They do not have the time and energy to really understand the Registry Industry and while they "help" the insiders implode other people can work to facilitate the expansion of a new Registry Industry at the edges and the U.S. Government can stand back and watch with little or no effort or knowledge required. In summary, you and others might be mistaking the apparent support of the U.S. Government for monopolies with the U.S. Government's two pronged approach to the problem. One, round up the monopolists into smaller and smaller cliques and watch them carefully while, two, taking a hands-off approach to the people and companies that offer explosive solutions that may catch on if the clique is not allowed to expand. Unfortunately, this does not look good because it gives the appearance that the U.S. Government is devoting all of its resources to the monopolists. This is no different than what happens on school yards all around the world. The teachers spend their time rounding up the small number of children that misbehave to watch them carefully, while the other children are left unsupervised to grow and prosper. It is unfortunate that all of these systems favor the approach where resources are spent on the small minority of monopolists that cause the majority of society to suffer by denying them more explosive opportunities. The key to moving forward is for society to understand what the U.S. Government is doing to provide them freedom to provide something better. If that happens then the majority of resources will be shifted to the explosive solutions which is the way it should be. Jim Fleming ====== [1] On Saturday, May 16, 1998 3:29 PM, charles mueller[SMTP:cmueller@metrolink.net] wrote: @ A century after a gang of Robber Barons successfully monopolized the @U.S. economy under the slogan, 'Monopoly Is Efficient,' we're seeing a @reenactment under precisely the same banner. We never learn. Over 200 @years ago, Adam Smith was quite clear that, far from being a fount of @efficiency, monopoly is the mother of bloat: "Monopoly, besides, is a great @enemy of good management, which can never be universally established but in @consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to @have recourse to it for the sake of self-defence." @ @ Bloated costs are an inevitable effect of economic monopoly and, @with those inflated costs, monopolies have no choice but to charge @higher-than-competitive prices, thus imposing on the public what Smith aptly @characterizes as a 'private tax,' one levied precisely in the interest of @economic INefficiency: "It is for the most worthless of all purposes too @that they [consumers] are taxed in this manner. It is merely to enable the @[monopoly] to support the negligence, profusion, and malversation of their @own servants [managers and employees], whose disorderly conduct seldom @allows the dividend of the company to exceed the ordinary rate of profit in @trades which are altogether free, and very frequently makes it fall even a @good deal short of that rate." In time, monopolies implode, becoming so @bloated that--even with their inflated prices--they can't earn even a @normal, competitive profit. U.S. Steel, IBM, GM, Xerox, Sears, the list @goes on. @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM

1 0

RE: Comments on the LIR WG and its role
by Jim Fleming 15 May '98

15 May '98

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". === 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

1 0

Re: Comments on the LIR WG and its role
by Mike Norris 15 May '98

15 May '98

Apologies for the missing reference in my earlier e-mail. Mike While not cast in stone, "European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures Title" (ripe-159) provides a solid basis for the orderly development of the Internet in Europe. That it was developed by consensus and is a public document adds to its strength. Of course it will need continual revision and the LIR WG must respond to genuine needs in a timely yet deliberate fashion.

1 0

Re: Comments on the LIR WG and its role
by Mike Norris 15 May '98

15 May '98

> 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). > > Do you anticipate ARIN following RIPE and getting > into the TLD business ? I presume you're referring to RIPE CENTR, a forum for European TLDs to work together and present a common front when necessary? I couldn't really comment on ARIN's intentions in this area. > > Also, do companies come to RIPE or the LIRs to obtain > address blocks to avoid other registries ? Hardly. RIPE's policy and procedures, as documented in ripe-159 (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-159.html), have been in operation for quite a while now. Peer pressure helps to ensure that they are adhered to, as does RIPE NCC's practice of auditing the assignments made by LIRs. Not so long ago, many companies based in Europe had resort to other registries for IP addresses. Now, however, close collaboration between the regional registries ensures the fairly close alignment of policy and procedures globally. Mike

1 0