I'm feeling pretty pissed off about this right now.
I spent a few hours reading through the proposal (www.arin.net)
and writing up comments on it. I then sent my comments to the
address to which they claim to be soliciting public comments,
only to have it bounce right back at me. Grrr. What a waste
I am not opposed to the concept of charging rent for address space.
The current proposal however is very badly flawed. Anyone want to
do a back of the envelope calculation on reasonable costs? Let's
see, 10000 backbone routers (surely an overestimate!), 16 bytes
static RAM each, $40/Mbyte. Well, that comes to $6.40! Nowhere
near the $2,500 I am being threatened with.
Received: from lists.internic.net (lists.internic.net [188.8.131.52]) by acid.base.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA06905 for <gordoni@BASE.COM>; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 23:00:01 -0800
Received: from lists (lists.internic.net [184.108.40.206]) by lists.internic.net (8.8.3/LISTS-1) with SMTP id BAA23007 for <gordoni@BASE.COM>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 01:57:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 01:57:19 +1900
From: "L-Soft list server at InterNIC Registration Services (1.8b)"
Subject: Rejected posting to NAIPR@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
You are not authorized to send mail to the NAIPR list from your
gordoni@BASE.COM account. You might be authorized to send to the list from
another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program which
generates slightly different addresses, but LISTSERV has no way to associate
this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have
any question regarding the policy of the NAIPR list, please contact the list
------------------------ Rejected message (47 lines) --------------------------
Subject: Comments on www.arin.net
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 10:06:41 -0800 (PST)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Gordon Irlam)
1. The organizational structure is flawed. The board of trustees
who are responsible for the business afairs of ARIN are a
self-perpetuating oligarchy. There is no mechanism for the
members of ARIN, nor the advisory counsel to act if the board
of trustees was to act out of self-interest, rather than
in the interests of the public who they are meant to be serving.
There is no mechanism for the advistory counsel, nor members to
vote to determine the board of trustees.
2. The mechanism for the selection of the initial board of trustees
is not specified.
3. It isn't made clear whether the proposal is inteded to just affect
ISP's, or any organization that owns a network address.
4. There is no economic rationale for the proposed pricing levels.
At the high end prices should reflect the availability of IPv4
address space, and be higher to discourage address wastage.
At the low end they should only reflect the cost of router
table memory costs, and should probably be lower.
5. Intellectial property right issues are not addressed.
Are IP address spaces a form of property that can be
bought and sold? Are they a resource that is rented?
6. The use of fees raised by the proposal is not specified.