ARIN is *NOT* A Good Thing

Kim Hubbard kimh at
Sat Mar 29 16:19:39 UTC 1997

> 	While the ARIN proposal has gotten much better in the past three
> 	months, I still assert that there is *nothing* ARIN will give me 
> 	for my $10,000 per year allocation fee that I don't get right now from 
> 	the tax dollars I currently pay to support the National Science 
> 	Foundation.

Name one allocation policy that you have had a say in.  ARIN will give you
that opportunity.  While you don't have to join ARIN, its members will have
the opportunity to influence policy on something that affects your business.

> 	Frankly, this whole "pay for" address policy is crazy -- the InterNIC
> 	made 60 million dollars PROFIT last year issuing domain names (while
> 	funding the assignment of IP address space AT THE SAME TIME).  This
> 	has to be the biggest money grab in history -- 60 million dollars
> 	isn't enough for one monopoly to make?  Unbelievable.

As has been pointed out, your numbers are totally wrong.  
> 	There is nothing about ARIN that says we will all be in concensus.
> 	If anything, there will be tremendous dischord because we will have
> 	hundreds of ISPs voicing their opinions at the semi-annual ARIN
> 	meetings.  The current NSF sponsored system does not foster this
> 	level of turmoil.  If anything, ARIN will turn the currently stable
> 	IP address policy mechanism into a semi-annual slug fest.
I don't know, I get quite a bit of turmoil everyday :-)  At least with ARIN
I'll be allocating address space based on what the consensus of ISPs in
our region want and need.
> 	Slow start was an important policy to conserve address space and
> 	(dispite is short comings) was a necessary at the time.  ARIN will
> 	not eliminate slow start or any other policy.  Having a vote on the
> 	ARIN board will not eliminate debate over IP address policy.
No, but there are many changes that could be made to improve the current
policies and procedures but without some form of community discussion and
consensus they won't happen.  It took 18 months to get the current IP
allocation policies approved for BCP and they were actually outdated long
before that happened.  

> 	> "While ARIN has been a subject of hot debate, there is nonetheless
> 	> a rough consensus within the Internet community that establishing 
> 	> a non-profit entity to handle the administration of this vital 
> 	> function is both necessary and appropriate."
> 	There is one -- the same one that has been funded by the NSF since
> 	the mid 1980's.  Why change something that has worked so well in
> 	the past?  There are no substantive advantages to ARIN, and it will
> 	cost all of us a lot more money.

Because NSF is no longer funding IP allocation.  The cooperative agreement
between NSF and NSI ends next year, are you saying that NSI should continue
administering IP space after the cooperative agreement ends?

> 	APNIC and RIPE are not run by governmental entities and must charge
> 	for address space in order to exist.  They get that address space
> 	from the current system that is under control of the NSF.  As a US
> 	taxpayer, I pay taxes to support the NSF.  Because the NSF has 
> 	alternate sources for its funding, ISPs and their customers do not
> 	have to make direct payments for address space.  This keeps prices
> 	for Internet access low.  Starting ARIN will not reduce your US
> 	taxes, it will simply add to the cost of doing business.  For no
> 	additional benefit.  Comparing APNIC and RIPE to the current US
> 	model is not fair or accurate.

You do not pay for IP support with your tax dollars, everyone else pays for
your IP support with their DNS money.

> 	I believe (as a US citizen) that the Internet is strategic to the
> 	United States, and control over the address space should remain with
> 	the US Government.  The US funded the development of the Internet,
> 	and there is a substantial portion of the US economy that is riding
> 	on top of it.  Giving control over this strategic asset to a non-profit
> 	organization that is beholden to nobody is foolishness.

ARIN isn't going to control anything, it's members, along with the IANA will
be determining policies and procedures.
> 	Charging for IP addresses will raise the cost of an Internet
> 	connection.  Raising costs will not improve the health of a growing
> 	and vibrant industry -- it is anathma to our industry.
> 	ARIN is the wrong answer for our industry.  As an example, in the
> 	radio and television industry, members have fought for years
> 	to prevent charges from being assessed against the limited radio
> 	spectrum they use.  Compare this to ARIN, where we are trying to levy
> 	substantial fees against members of our own industry.  ARIN is a bad
> 	idea.  It will continue to be a bad idea because it will always cost
> 	more that what we currently have with the NSF, and it will provide
> 	no substantive benefit.  Slow start is not going away, and ARIN will
> 	not quell address policy debates.  ARIN will hurt our industry, it
> 	will make the Internet more expensive for customers, and it will
> 	form yet another elite club.  Like I said in January, ARIN is
> 	equivalent to throwing your money away.
You're right, you will have to pay for a service that has been "free" because
the US government decided to stop subsidizing this service.  But is it
their responsibility to continue subsidizing your business?


More information about the NANOG mailing list