North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ARIN is A Good Thing

  • From: Mike Gaddis
  • Date: Sun Mar 30 11:01:44 1997

Jim Browning wrote: 
>From:  Ehud Gavron[SMTP:[email protected]]
>Sent:  Saturday, March 29, 1997 1:11 AM
>       IF DNS pays for IP and the InterNIC made $60M profit DESPITE
>       also doing IP, then clearly DNS fees are too high.
>       IF ARIN means that IP pays for IP and the DNS funds are unfettered,
>       then that $60M profit (in one year) would be much more than $60M.

As has been pointed out, the numbers you are quoting are fictitious..
Jim Browning
If you know this is fictitious then you must know what the real numbers are.
I'm sure many of us would like to know the answer to that authoritatively.
It would be quite illuminating.

In watching the debates on DNS and IP allocation I am coming around to the
conclusion that while we may have to live with some form of centralized
control, perhaps even monopolistic, we must make sure that the controlling
entity is accountable to the Internet community.  If the entity is allowed to
charge for the cost of services provided then it is *very* reasonable to expect
that the revenue derived be openly disclosed and be required to be directly
proportional to the actual costs involved.

This suggests that the entity should be a not-for-profit corporation with
an open charter that requires that service charges be commensurate to actual
expenses (audited and reported each year publicly).  Its board of directors
unpaid and its officers limited in compensation.  Also in the charter should be
explicit requirements to use some percent of its fees to reduce the first year
costs for Internet newbie corporations and/or other organizations to encourage
experimentation and innovation.  Those of us already established in the business
can afford to pay a *little* extra for this purpose.  I have yet to read the ARIN
charter (sorry about that).  If it reads like this then I'm all for it.  However, the
same argument applies to DNS and other services requiring centralized control.

(BTW, a clear statement that the primary mission of the company is
dedicated to providing quality and responsive service to the Internet is needed.)

Under *no* circumstances can we allow a for-profit company to have unrestricted
monopolistic control over *any* centralized Internet service.  That is a recipe for
disaster.  Also, I do not think the government can do a job as well as an
appropriately chartered not-for-profit company.  However, I have *no* problem
having the government in an appropriate form of supervisory or contributory role,
perhaps with a guaranteed seat on the board of directors.

Mike Gaddis
Savvis Comunications
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -