- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

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

15 May '98

Are the "highly competitive" LIRs "for profit" or "non profit" ? Do you anticipate ARIN following RIPE and getting into the TLD business ? Also, do companies come to RIPE or the LIRs to obtain address blocks to avoid other registries ? On Friday, May 15, 1998 2:21 AM, Mike Norris[SMTP:Mike.Norris@heanet.ie] wrote: @ @Local IRs are unusual entities. Their function as such is @not their primary raison d'etre. They are not in business @to allocate arcane numbers. Rather they provide, in a @highly competitive market, a growing spectrum of Internet @services. Part of their business is to assign IP addresses @in such a way as to maintain global connectivity and routability @within the ever expanding Internet. In this sense, we can @call them local IRs. Here they must work with other local IRs, @who happen to be their competitors as ISPs, and with the @regional registry, in order to ensure interoperability and @equity. @ @LIR WG and the RIPE NCC @----------------------- @The LIR WG is part of the framework that promotes this @necessary collaboration. The other important part is the @RIPE NCC, in its capacity as the European regional registry. @The separate identities of the WG and the NCC mirrors their @different roles in determining policy and implementing it. @At the same time, a close relationship between the two can @lead to informed decisions and a responsive operation of @policy. @ @The relationship has evolved over time as both the RIPE NCC @and local IRs have changed. The recent incorporation of RIPE @NCC has helped to formalise the relationship. The NCC has @always been sensitive to the needs of RIPE members. The change @has been that there is now a legal basis for ISPs both supporting @and having a say in the governance of the NCC. A subtle change @perhaps, but one that ensures a measure of stability in the @functioning of the NCC and the delivery of its services, such as @that of regional IP registrar. @ @This bottom-up model, largely developed in RIPE, is now being @paralleled in other regions. It is a good example of the @industry, though highly competitive, regulating itself. Indeed, @the model may be applied at the global level, if recent proposals @for the opening up and restructuring of IANA functions are to @follow their logical course. @ @There may be a need to extend the model in the other direction. @Some large local IRs are allocating address space to their @customers and devolving to them the task of assigning the @addresses. With generic procedures already in place, it should @be possible to extend the chain of responsibility and accountability @to such sub-local IRs. @ @Policy and Procedures @--------------------- @While not cast in stone, "Title" (ripe-???) 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. @ @I am not saying that this is the end of history and that the @issue of IP address allocation has been settled forever. But @at least there should be no room for fear, uncertainty or doubt @about the manner in which IP numbers are allocated and applied. @ @It may be that the battle is being waged on new territory. @We have seen the debate in Europe and more widely over the @name space and its various generic and national subsets. @Indeed, one of RIPE's newest working groups is devoting a @lot of effort to the issues of name registration. @ @While the allocation of IP addresses continues apace, the @big demand is for names to be registered on the Internet. @We can see the trend in Europe from the host count conducted @by the RIPE NCC since 1992. There has been a consistent @and exponential growth in the number of hosts (corresponding @to IP addresses). Of late, however, there has been an even @more spectacular growth in the number of SOA records @(corresponding to zone files or domain names). @ @Up until just three years, the ratio of hosts to SOA records @hovered up and down in the low 70s. Since then, however, it @has consistently dropped every month, and now stands at a value @of 12. We are asymtpotically approaching a position of parity @between host and domains. Just imagine the contention for domain @names, and the strain that will put on a registry structure that @at present is virtually flat. @ @Looking ahead @------------- @In addition to their current task of managing IP address @space, local IRs face the challenge of migration to IPv6. @We hope to learn directly about this at RIPE 30, as well @as paying close attention to the work of the IPv6 WG. @For the steady state of IPv6, new policies, procedures, @tools and training materials will have to be prepared. The @transition itself requires careful coordination between @LIRs and with the NCC and the IPv6 WG. @ @Right now, IPv4 registration will proceed, as will the @need for consistency and quality in the operation of the @procedures. The audit program of the NCC will help here, @as will the LIR WG's promotion of high standards in the @assignment and use of IP addresses. @ @There will continue to be challenges and concerns for local @IRs in their management of IP addresses on behalf of their @clients. The use of private addresses, firewalls, NAT, @intranets and other techniques will change our model of @the Internet and we must learn to understand their effects. @Address aggregation is still a high priority, yet we must @be sensitive to the need for connectivity in a highly @volatile market. @ @These are but some of the tasks facing the Local IR working @group. Perhaps we could discuss this at RIPE 30 and on the @list. @ @Regards. @ @Mike Norris @ @ @ @ - 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

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

15 May '98

Local IRs are unusual entities. Their function as such is not their primary raison d'etre. They are not in business to allocate arcane numbers. Rather they provide, in a highly competitive market, a growing spectrum of Internet services. Part of their business is to assign IP addresses in such a way as to maintain global connectivity and routability within the ever expanding Internet. In this sense, we can call them local IRs. Here they must work with other local IRs, who happen to be their competitors as ISPs, and with the regional registry, in order to ensure interoperability and equity. LIR WG and the RIPE NCC ----------------------- The LIR WG is part of the framework that promotes this necessary collaboration. The other important part is the RIPE NCC, in its capacity as the European regional registry. The separate identities of the WG and the NCC mirrors their different roles in determining policy and implementing it. At the same time, a close relationship between the two can lead to informed decisions and a responsive operation of policy. The relationship has evolved over time as both the RIPE NCC and local IRs have changed. The recent incorporation of RIPE NCC has helped to formalise the relationship. The NCC has always been sensitive to the needs of RIPE members. The change has been that there is now a legal basis for ISPs both supporting and having a say in the governance of the NCC. A subtle change perhaps, but one that ensures a measure of stability in the functioning of the NCC and the delivery of its services, such as that of regional IP registrar. This bottom-up model, largely developed in RIPE, is now being paralleled in other regions. It is a good example of the industry, though highly competitive, regulating itself. Indeed, the model may be applied at the global level, if recent proposals for the opening up and restructuring of IANA functions are to follow their logical course. There may be a need to extend the model in the other direction. Some large local IRs are allocating address space to their customers and devolving to them the task of assigning the addresses. With generic procedures already in place, it should be possible to extend the chain of responsibility and accountability to such sub-local IRs. Policy and Procedures --------------------- While not cast in stone, "Title" (ripe-???) 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. I am not saying that this is the end of history and that the issue of IP address allocation has been settled forever. But at least there should be no room for fear, uncertainty or doubt about the manner in which IP numbers are allocated and applied. It may be that the battle is being waged on new territory. We have seen the debate in Europe and more widely over the name space and its various generic and national subsets. Indeed, one of RIPE's newest working groups is devoting a lot of effort to the issues of name registration. While the allocation of IP addresses continues apace, the big demand is for names to be registered on the Internet. We can see the trend in Europe from the host count conducted by the RIPE NCC since 1992. There has been a consistent and exponential growth in the number of hosts (corresponding to IP addresses). Of late, however, there has been an even more spectacular growth in the number of SOA records (corresponding to zone files or domain names). Up until just three years, the ratio of hosts to SOA records hovered up and down in the low 70s. Since then, however, it has consistently dropped every month, and now stands at a value of 12. We are asymtpotically approaching a position of parity between host and domains. Just imagine the contention for domain names, and the strain that will put on a registry structure that at present is virtually flat. Looking ahead ------------- In addition to their current task of managing IP address space, local IRs face the challenge of migration to IPv6. We hope to learn directly about this at RIPE 30, as well as paying close attention to the work of the IPv6 WG. For the steady state of IPv6, new policies, procedures, tools and training materials will have to be prepared. The transition itself requires careful coordination between LIRs and with the NCC and the IPv6 WG. Right now, IPv4 registration will proceed, as will the need for consistency and quality in the operation of the procedures. The audit program of the NCC will help here, as will the LIR WG's promotion of high standards in the assignment and use of IP addresses. There will continue to be challenges and concerns for local IRs in their management of IP addresses on behalf of their clients. The use of private addresses, firewalls, NAT, intranets and other techniques will change our model of the Internet and we must learn to understand their effects. Address aggregation is still a high priority, yet we must be sensitive to the need for connectivity in a highly volatile market. These are but some of the tasks facing the Local IR working group. Perhaps we could discuss this at RIPE 30 and on the list. Regards. Mike Norris

1 0

PDCD1
by ilupe74＠econonews.com 12 May '98

12 May '98

* NOTICE: ANSWERS ARE READ AUTOMATICALLY. - ONLY SEND US BACK THIS MESSAGE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN OUR JOURNAL. IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE "BREAKFAST AND DIAMONDS" IN SPANISH, INDICATE IN THE E-MAIL SUBJECT: ES (e.g.: DCD1ES) - IF YOU SEND US BACK THIS MESSAGE MORE THAN ONCE, "BREAKFAST WITH DIAMONDS" WILL BE FORWARDED AS MANY TIMES AS YOU HAVE SENT IT. *ATENCION: LAS RESPUESTAS DE ESTE E-MAIL SE LEEN AUTOMATICAMENTE. - SOLO DEBERA REBOTAR ESTE MENSAJE EN CASO DE ESTAR INTERESADO EN NUESTRO PERIODICO. SI QUIERE RECIBIR "DESAYUNE CON DIAMANTES" EN ESPAÑOL AÑADA EN EL ASUNTO LA ABREVIATURA: ES (EJ.DCD1ES). - SI REBOTA MAS DE UNA VEZ ESTE E-MAIL LE ENVIAREMOS "DESAYUNE CON DIAMANTES" TANTAS VECES COMO LO HAYA REBOTADO. Dear Sir/Madam, Would you like to have breakfast with diamonds? You probably think that this only happens in movies. However, our wish is to make your dreams come true and that you have breakfast while reading the hottest economic news in "Breakfast with Diamonds". "Breakfast with Diamonds" is an ALIVE JOURNAL, since news are hourly updated, INTERACTIVE, since our subscribers have the opportunity to ask for further information of any piece of news (free service), and GLOBAL since it includes the most significant news worldwide. INFORMATION IS KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE IS POWER If you wish to learn more about "Breakfast with Diamonds" we cordially invite you to visit our website: http://www.econonews.com If you wish to receive "Breakfast with Diamonds" for a free 30-day trial, you just have to send us back this message. Sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused you and thank you for your time. Yours faithfully, Breakfast with Diamonds Marketing Director

1 0

Fw: APNIC Director General position available
by Mike Norris 12 May '98

12 May '98

Apologies for any replicates. Mike ---------- > From: David R. Conrad <davidc(a)apnic.net> > To: iepg(a)iepg.org > Subject: APNIC Director General position available > Date: 12 May 1998 09:17 > > Hi, > > Apologies for duplicates. > > For those interested in applying to be the next Director General of the > Asia Pacific Network Information Center, the Internet registry for Asia and > the Pacific Rim, please see the job announcement at > http://www.apnic.net/jobs/dg.html. > > Regards, > -drc >

1 0

LIR WG mtg at RIPE 30, draft agenda
by Mike Norris 07 May '98

07 May '98

Below is a draft agenda for the meeting of the Local IR working group at RIPE 30 in Stockholm. The meeting is scheduled for 11:00 to 12:30 on Tuesday 19th May. It's a pretty full agenda, but please advise me of any other items for inclusion. Regards. Mike Norris RIPE 30 - 18th to 20th May 1998 Local IR Working Group D R A F T A G E N D A 1. Admin - scribe - agenda 2. RIPE 29 - minutes - actions 3. Reports from registries - IANA - European regional (RIPE NCC) - other regionals - APNIC, ARIN, AfriNIC 4. IP Address Space Assignment - consistency and auditing (NCC report) - requests for aggregation - aggregation of inetnum objects - IPv6 address allocation (Bob Hinden) 5. IP Registry hierarchy - possible need for sub-LIRs 6. Role of LIR WG 7. Registry procedures - web-assisted assignment, reverse delegation - tools for local registries 8. I/O with other WGs 9. Statistics 10. AOB

1 0

Fw: Requested NSF Routing Arbiter database object changes
by Mike Norris 27 Apr '98

27 Apr '98

Here's a brave attempt to clear the swamp, and more ;-) Mike ---------- > From: NSF Routing Arbiter Database Maintainer Forwarding <DB-admin(a)ra.net> > To: AS1800(a)ra.net > Subject: Requested NSF Routing Arbiter database object changes > Date: 24 April 1998 16:37 > > > Dear Maintainer, > > This is to notify you that some objects in which you are mentioned as > a maintainer were requested to be changed, but *failed* the proper > authorisation for any of the mentioned maintainers. > Please contact the sender of these changes about changes that need > need to be made to the following objects. > > The mail message causing these failures had the following mail headers: > > - From: Super-User <root(a)g03.global-one.net.tr> > - Subject: > - Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:31:32 +0300 (EET DST) > - Msg-Id: <199804241531.SAA04338(a)g03.global-one.net.tr> > > NSF Routing Arbiter Database Maintainer Forwarding Department > > --- > DELETION REQUESTED FOR: > > route: 192.0.0.0/2 > descr: QUARTER-DEFAULT-ONE > descr: The Reasonable Default Route Project > descr: This prefix is one of three which is designed > descr: to accomplish several things. Firstly, ICM > descr: will be offering a set of robust and hardened > descr: default-oriented prefixes which will be made > descr: reliably available to some of AS1800's peers and > descr: things downstream from them. The routing announcements > descr: will be supplemented with a box that sends back > descr: appropriate ICMP messages; at some point we will > descr: also make a view of the default-announcing box's > descr: knowledge of global routing available to folks > descr: who wish to accept the default announcement. > descr: Secondly, this announcement is designed to assist > descr: ANS in the transition away from advisories. We expect > descr: that this will allow people to send in far fewer > descr: advisory updates than is done currently, without > descr: breaking reachability between ANS's customers and > descr: the rest of the world. This is good for both ANS > descr: and everyone else. > descr: Thirdly, ICM will be running some experiments on > descr: sheer amount of traffic that follows an ultimate > descr: default, although this must be done without > descr: examining that traffic for content without explicit > descr: permission from the originator. We expect that this > descr: will help serve as a tool to identify and correct > descr: problems in the global routing system. > descr: questions, comments and flames to: smd(a)sprint.net, roll(a)stupi.se > origin: AS1800 > advisory: AS690 1:1800 2:1239 > mnt-by: MAINT-AS1800 > changed: con(a)sprint.net 951012 > source: RADB

3 2