Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe

[jones () nsipo arc nasa gov (Wm. Prichard Jones)]

Cool.  Off-shore oil leases bring a tidy sum.  Government is trying
to emulate private enterprise these days.  But careful when you open
this box.  It could ...  argh#$%.  Kent is right on.

        /bill jones, and chargeback afficianado 
        nasa ames research center

In referenace to:

--- Forwarded mail from "Kent W. England" <kwe () 6SigmaNets com>

> From nanog-owner () merit edu  Tue Jun 18 14:53:21 1996
Return-Path: <nanog-owner () merit edu>
Received: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT) from merit.edu (RFC1413 sender merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by 
nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (8.7.1/1.5) id OAA09938
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id NAA18345 for nanog-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 
13:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailhub.cts.com (mailhub.cts.com [192.188.72.25]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id NAA18340 
for <nanog () merit edu>; Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netguru.cts.com(really [204.94.77.43]) by mailhub.cts.com
        via smail with smtp
        id <m0uW4sw-000V85C () mailhub cts com>
        for <nanog () merit edu>; Tue, 18 Jun 96 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
        (Smail-3.1.92 1996-Mar-19 #3 built 1996-Apr-21)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960618175326.00725468 () mail cts com>
X-Sender: kwe () mail cts com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 10:53:26 -0700
To: gih () aarnet edu au (Geoff Huston)
From: "Kent W. England" <kwe () 6SigmaNets com>
Subject: Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
Cc: nanog () merit edu
Sender: owner-nanog () merit edu
Precedence: bulk

At 08:40 PM 6/18/96 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:

> Of course this is not always the case, and typically a public resource
distribution
> space couples regulation with a tariff to achieve the ultimate outcome of fair
> and equitable distribution. The radio spectrum is perhaps the best covered
> territory here when looking at this space in relation to the policy debate over
> IP address management.

In this debate we have to take care when we talk about charging for
registration, whether we are intending to:

a) cover the cost of administering a resource (such as .com)
b) trying to let a market set prices
c) trying to cover the national debt (as with spectrum auctions)

Let's just be very sure that if and when fees or prices for addresses are
agreed, that someone doesn't step up and claim the right to auction
addresses to cover the US budget deficit. There might be a few people in DC
that would think to do that.

--Kent



--- End of forwarded message from "Kent W. England" <kwe () 6SigmaNets com>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -