[ga] Re: IP address holders - are they represented?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jay and all assembly members,

  First let me say this should not really be on the DNSO GA list...
More comments below as to the subject....

Jay Fenello wrote:

> At 07:49 PM 3/15/00 , David R. Conrad wrote:
> >Michael,
> >
> > > I know it's in the interests of IBM, MCI,& AT&T to put small
> > > companies out of business, but is it in the interests of the RIRs?
> >
> >Sorry, I have _no_ interest in getting into yet another education effort on
> >the implications of CIDR, address aggregation, provider based addressing, and
> >why it is necessary.  I have been involved in and seen all the arguments and
> >counter-arguments more times than I want to recall and have neither the time
> >nor the interest in wading through it yet again.
> >
> >If this is something you are actually interested in (rather than using it as
> >yet another rhetorical soapbox to bash ICANN), I suggest you start by reading
> >the old IEPG and IETF CIDRD and ALE working group archives.  You might also
> >check the APNIC and ARIN archives for the dicussions when they were
> >established.  You will find much of the discussion repetitive -- as I
> >indicated, this argument has been repeated _many_ times since people
> >discovered that 32 bits was not infinite, but hopefully informative.
> >
> >The executive summary is: addresses are allocated the way they are because the
> >folks who work at RIRs are interested in insuring the Internet continues to
> >work.
>
> Hi David,
>
> What does this have to do with complaints
> about ARIN's regressive pricing policies?
>
> Or the huge @Home delegation?
>
> These are questions of policy.

  I can remember and document if necessary when David Conrad made some
statements to the effect that IP numbers were not for sale and could not be
purchased.  Of course we all know now that David's statements along these lines
were inaccurate than and remain so now.

>
>
> >If you do not believe this statement, go read the stuff I mentioned above.
> >
> > > I've wasted two years reading what ICANN writes or posts. Not a
> > > single thing they've said has been put into practice, just the
> > > opposite. They are professional con artists, whose sole interest is
> > > to take as much power away from individuals as they can. The users
> > > have been swept aside, the ISPs have been swept aside, and sooner or
> > > later you, too, will be swept aside if you don't wise up.
> >
> >Hopefully, you'll someday learn that demonizing in this way does very little
> >to help your credibility.
>
> Deamonizing aside, Michael's
> complaints are still accurate!

  Agreed, Michaels statements/comments are very accurate.  I also didn't
see or read any "Demonizing" in them.  Rather I did gather that David was
attempting in a snide sort of way, which is his habit of notice, to demonize
Michael or make it appear to the readers that Michael was behaving in his
comments in demonic fashion.  This is typical of David on occasion.

>
>
> Jay.
>
> >Rgds,
> >-drc
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello,
> New Media Relations
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.fenello.com  770-392-9480
> Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
> ------------------------------------------------
> "The unexamined life isn't worth living"
>    -- Socrates

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html