CIX doing registries?? Just say no!

Bob Collet rcollet at
Thu May 25 12:55:00 UTC 1995

>  As I mentioned at the nanog conference, I would very much like to 
> have registries where we _pay_ for the registration services; the 
> idea being that paying for the service will result in much better 
> service. I also mentioned that I would like such registries to 
> be non-for-profit, and that I would rather CIX stay the hell away 
> from registries. 
> Why am I against CIX? Registries delegate authority over two 
> different kinds of things: domain names and IP addresses [and AS 
> numbers too]. 
> The former have almost no value prior to registration, the latter 
> have value wether or not they are being used. Either way NICs perform 
> the service of the delegating authority over domain names and IP 
> addresses; what they don't do is evaluate the market value of the 
> domain names and IP addresses they hand out, and _that_ is what I worry 
> an outfit like CIX might be tempted to do. It wouldn't be too bad if 
> we had to pay market prices for IP addresses and domain names, but 
> CIX might not have to pay market prices for the right to 
> delegate authority either; I don't want to see a huge scam here... 

In the old White Paper we were proposing that any surplus funds go to places 
like ISOC/IETF.  Surplus funds, that is surplus over cost of operations, would 
me minimzed by a board of some type.  I am sorry you feel we'd scam you.  In 
any case, the White Paper did its job by acting as a catalyst for further 
movement with the result being Paul and Jerry's Internet registration Tool Set 

> How would CIX determine the fees that we're to pay them for 
> their registration services?? In response to their members' questions 
> as to what they (the members) would get [for their fees being spent 
> on this project] that non-CIX-members woudln't, Paul and Jerry 
> mumbled something about a two-tiered service pricing scheme where 
> CIX members would get lower fees. Am I the only one bothered by this? 

I think they might have been referring to the tool set.

> And _what_ is CIX going to give _who_ in exchange for the 
> right/responsibility of delegating authority over the Class C space 
> lying at 207.*.*.* and beyond?? And what would they then charge for 
> the service of assigning these to ISP's [and whoever else]?? 
> Mind you, I don't want to see IP address space auctions like 
> the electromagnetic spectrum auctions the FCC has been carrying out... 
> I think that careful delegation, will give us enough time to get to 
> the point where the older IP assignments can be redone (i.e. when 
> people renumber) or to when IPv6 can be deployed (which opens up a 
> whole new wonderful can of worms. My proposal is that a 
> non-for-profit organization free of conflicting interests (like 
> the members vs. 
> non-members problem CIX has) take over the InterNIC's 
> registry responsibilities. 

In the old White paper the goal was for the CIX to simply act as a clearing 
house where the actual registries that customers would deal with operate at 
ISP level.  Therefore, I fail to see the conflict of interest.  In any case, 
as described above, the immediate problem is with the current state of support 
tools, and that is where we think we should be focusing our attention.  Any 
advise on this matter would be appreciated.  The bottom line is to do what's 
right and what's needed for the ISP community.


Bob Collet
Preident, CIX

> Which would be the best forum to discuss these matters? 
> Nick 

More information about the NANOG mailing list