On Oct 6, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Lee Dilkie <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2018-10-05 00:40, Jo Rhett wrote: >> ARIN has real issues to deal with, and the hundred or so resource holders >> who want to keep stealing the time and effort of everyone involved in ARIN >> for their little pity party should go away > > stealing? > > That's one way of looking at it. The other is to acknoledge that it was all > free until big buisiness moved in and decided they wanted to make some money. > In which case the "stealing" started occuring the day ARIN was created and > adoped a fee structure.
<sigh> That you would try to argue this without even refering to basics of history blows my mind. I doubt real history interests you, so this reply is only for others who might think you've raised a good question: These arguments started 25 years ago when InterNIC took over IP allocation (see RFC-1400), contracted Network Solutions to do the work, and to charge fees appropriate to cover costs. That's 5 years before ARIN was incorporated, and another 8 months before the service transitioned from InterNIC to ARIN. Further, it was NEVER free. It was a grant-subsided function, then when NSFnet was created the legal constraints imposed by congress required that the non-military parts pay for themselves. Go read the debate and modifications to Gore's bills. I worked in milnet exclusively (except for some transPacific UUCP gateways I ran out of my home at my own cost) until late 1993 so I didn't have to deal with commercial entities and ISP registrations until then--at which time NetSol had taken over the service and the contracts very clearly indicated both a fee and that the fee covered 2 years of service. And don't forget, for the 3 years Gore spent finally getting funding approved nobody thought that the Internet as such was going to exist much longer. Even the first 2 years afterwards we were all trying to figure out how to dance the dance correctly, and most of us working on it then didn't believe the Internet would remain a single network. To find people who still have registrations that don't mention fees, compliance with US law, etc you have to go back to 1989 and before when you'd chase Jon down at coffee/tea shop and scribble down the number he gave you on paper because it was the fastest way to get an assignment. And damn straight, they are guaranteed every service written on the service agreement they received. (Hint: NONE) PLEASE for the love of god stop making up things that sound good and justify nonsense as if it was factual. These years happened, there was paperwork and legal contracts, and just because it's not available for review in Docusign or published on Instagram doesn't mean that no contract applies. US law is quite specific about implied contracts, and you'll find little precedence to support these notions. It is not that ARIN hasn't had the right to shut them down or demand a contract before. It's that ARIN and John Curran in particular has not wanted the fight with the community. So they listen, bend over backwards, and make it easy as possible to join. They've done an exceptional job. I think we the community need to be the bad cop, and stop ARIN wasting time, money, and legal fees on this. No contract, no service. It's been 25 years since the initial changes in fees, let's move along now. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
