From dean at av8.net  Thu Oct  4 23:30:31 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 23:30:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
	(fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710042329070.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>

Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.

You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.  
Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
government and legacy holders.

And you left off the part about:

"I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for 
authority to have the government obtain back that which the government 
gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've 
started to play with different theories here."

So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
any definitive opinion as you assert. 

Please tell the IETF you were wrong.

                --Dean


On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
> > "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
> > ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
> > legacy assignments"
> >
> > Where is this counsel statement?
> 
> http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
> 
> "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like 
> here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN 
> is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit 
> trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free 
> services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services 
> to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly 
> permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   





From tom at lanline.com  Fri Oct  5 09:56:11 2007
From: tom at lanline.com (Thomas Leonard)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:56:11 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710042329070.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>

I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  Why should legacy customers get a free ride.  We pay significantly more for our
allotment, so should they.  If they paid a fair price, all of our prices would be reduced.  

In my geographical area it's becoming critical as a local competitor has a legacy class B and can give away IP addresses as if
they're water.  I can not and they have an unfair competitive advantage. 

We should all be treated the same.

Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500 
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?(fwd)

Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.

You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.  
Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
government and legacy holders.

And you left off the part about:

"I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for 
authority to have the government obtain back that which the government 
gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've 
started to play with different theories here."

So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
any definitive opinion as you assert. 

Please tell the IETF you were wrong.

                --Dean


On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
> > "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
> > ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
> > legacy assignments"
> >
> > Where is this counsel statement?
> 
> http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
> 
> "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like 
> here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN 
> is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit 
> trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free 
> services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services 
> to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly 
> permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   



_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.





From david.picard at sogetel.com  Fri Oct  5 10:28:36 2007
From: david.picard at sogetel.com (David Picard)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:28:36 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
Message-ID: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEGEDJEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>

I agree with this.

Same thing for me...

Large cables operators in Quebec have a lot of Class B and they offer as may
ip as customers wants...
I cannot do this...


David Picard
---------------------------------------------
Administrateur reseau / Network administrator
Internet Galilee
www.sogetel.net

david.picard at sogetel.com
1-866-764-3835 x1271
1-819-293-1271



"CONFIDENTIALITE  Ce document transmis par courrier electronique est destine
uniquement a la personne ou a l'entite a qui il est adresse et peut contenir
 des renseignements confidentiels.  La confidentialite demeure malgre
l'envoi de ce document a la mauvaise adresse electronique.  Si vous n'etes
pas le destinataire vise ou la personne chargee de remettre ce document a
son destinataire, veuillez nous en informer sans delai et detruire ce
document.  Toute distribution, reproduction ou autre utilisation de ce
document est interdite sans notre consentement."


-----Message d'origine-----
De : arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]De la part de Thomas Leonard
Envoye : 5 octobre 2007 09:56
A : 'Dean Anderson'; arin-discuss at arin.net
Objet : Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
Legacyassignments?(fwd)


I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  Why should legacy customers get a
free ride.  We pay significantly more for our
allotment, so should they.  If they paid a fair price, all of our prices
would be reduced.

In my geographical area it's becoming critical as a local competitor has a
legacy class B and can give away IP addresses as if
they're water.  I can not and they have an unfair competitive advantage.

We should all be treated the same.

Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
assignments?(fwd)

Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.

You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.
Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
government and legacy holders.

And you left off the part about:

"I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for
authority to have the government obtain back that which the government
gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've
started to play with different theories here."

So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
any definitive opinion as you assert.

Please tell the IETF you were wrong.

                --Dean


On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
> > "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
> > ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
> > legacy assignments"
> >
> > Where is this counsel statement?
>
>
http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
>
> "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like
> here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN
> is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the
non-profit
> trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free
> services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services
> to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly
> permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
>
> S
>
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>
>
>
>



--
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000



_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.




From pclark at paxio.com  Fri Oct  5 10:42:03 2007
From: pclark at paxio.com (Phillip Clark)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:42:03 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
Message-ID: <47064D3B.8010806@paxio.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071005/7ce7548f/attachment.html>

From KevinDz at tst-us.com  Fri Oct  5 10:44:41 2007
From: KevinDz at tst-us.com (Kevin Dziekonski)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:44:41 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement
	onLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEGEDJEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
	<BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEGEDJEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>
Message-ID: <00b501c8075e$43436670$c70014ac@tstwsgazoo>

I agree that everyone should be treated fairly and not have preferential
treatment for legacy customers. At some point can I be considered to a
legacy customer and when can I expect a free ride? Does this mean if I merge
with a legacy company, I can assume my fees structure would now be theirs
instead of the one I am paying for now? 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
assignments?(fwd)

Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.

You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.
Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
government and legacy holders.

And you left off the part about:

"I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for
authority to have the government obtain back that which the government
gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've
started to play with different theories here."

So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
any definitive opinion as you assert.

Please tell the IETF you were wrong.

                --Dean


On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
> > "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
> > ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
> > legacy assignments"
> >
> > Where is this counsel statement?
>
>
http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
>
> "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like
> here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN
> is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the
non-profit
> trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free
> services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services
> to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly
> permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
>
> S
>
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>
>
>
>



--
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000



_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.







From jer at mia.net  Fri Oct  5 10:45:21 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:45:21 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
Message-ID: <88F0426A-9583-4F07-B058-291F58BF6BF6@mia.net>


On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Thomas Leonard wrote:

> I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  Why should legacy  
> customers get a free ride.  We pay significantly more for our
> allotment, so should they.  If they paid a fair price, all of our  
> prices would be reduced.

Same here...  I would like to see a significant reduction in price...  
For what we get, vs. what we pay, to be honest, we just cannot afford  
to remain competitive in this business... It's like pulling teeth to  
get IP space as it is...  Our initial allotment is too small IMO, and  
to get more, frankly, is just not cost affective for us.  It is  
really disturbing; the wide range of price bias across the IP spectrum.
>
> In my geographical area it's becoming critical as a local  
> competitor has a legacy class B and can give away IP addresses as if
> they're water.  I can not and they have an unfair competitive  
> advantage.

My point exactly.. Again, WE  CANNNOT  REMAIN competitive, when our  
competitors can give away IP space like it is going out of style..  
Not too name names, but you have several companies out there that do  
not even adhere to ARIN's guidelines when it comes to proper  
justification of IP allocation.  Some are now offering hosting  
customers multiple class c ip space across hundreds of class c's..  
How can they do that?  How can I compete with that?    I am coming  
very close to just giving my allocation back, and collecting space  
from my upscales..
>
> We should all be treated the same.

I'd like to see something done by the end of the year... If I could  
go some where else, at this point, if their were  a competitor to  
ARIN... I'd be moving on.

This situation is pretty sad... I hope someone is listening.

Thank you.

Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From brad at belwave.com  Fri Oct  5 10:45:27 2007
From: brad at belwave.com (Brad Belton)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:45:27 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement
	on	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <47064D3B.8010806@paxio.com>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
	<47064D3B.8010806@paxio.com>
Message-ID: <0e2c01c8075e$5ee86d30$1cb94790$@com>

I agree as well.

 

 

Brad Belton

BelWave Communications

O:  817-737-3124 #101

F:  817-336-7031

 

 

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Phillip Clark
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 9:42 AM
To: Thomas Leonard
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
assignments?(fwd)

 

I agree. There needs to be a fair and level playing field. I would support
any action to resolve this matter.

Phillip Clark
PAXIO Inc.


Thomas Leonard wrote: 

I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  Why should legacy customers get a
free ride.  We pay significantly more for our
allotment, so should they.  If they paid a fair price, all of our prices
would be reduced.  
 
In my geographical area it's becoming critical as a local competitor has a
legacy class B and can give away IP addresses as if
they're water.  I can not and they have an unfair competitive advantage. 
 
We should all be treated the same.
 
Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500 
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
assignments?(fwd)
 
Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.
 
You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.  
Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
government and legacy holders.
 
And you left off the part about:
 
"I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for 
authority to have the government obtain back that which the government 
gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've 
started to play with different theories here."
 
So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
any definitive opinion as you assert. 
 
Please tell the IETF you were wrong.
 
                --Dean
 
 
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
 
  

Thus spake "Dean Anderson"  <mailto:dean at av8.com> <dean at av8.com>
    

"Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
legacy assignments"
 
Where is this counsel statement?
      

http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
 
"MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like 
here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN 
is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit 
trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free 
services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services 
to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly 
permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
 
S
 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 
 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071005/22ed89b1/attachment.html>

From ryan at tampabaydsl.com  Fri Oct  5 11:02:00 2007
From: ryan at tampabaydsl.com (Ryan Yaldor)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:02:00 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel
	statementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <0e2c01c8075e$5ee86d30$1cb94790$@com>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net><47064D3B.8010806@paxio.com>
	<0e2c01c8075e$5ee86d30$1cb94790$@com>
Message-ID: <05a601c80760$b03aaf70$2500000a@ytech.com>

I also agree.

 

Ryan Yaldor

PBX-Change 

TampaBay DSL

ph  813-243-8850 ext. 206

fax 813-249-8414

 <http://www.PBX-Change.com> www.PBX-Change.com

www.TampaBayDSL.com <http://www.tampabaydsl.com/> 

 

  _____  

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:45 AM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementon Legacy
assignments?(fwd)

 

I agree as well.

 

 

Brad Belton

BelWave Communications

O:  817-737-3124 #101

F:  817-336-7031

 

 

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Phillip Clark
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 9:42 AM
To: Thomas Leonard
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
assignments?(fwd)

 

I agree. There needs to be a fair and level playing field. I would support
any action to resolve this matter.

Phillip Clark
PAXIO Inc.


Thomas Leonard wrote: 

I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  Why should legacy customers get a
free ride.  We pay significantly more for our
allotment, so should they.  If they paid a fair price, all of our prices
would be reduced.  
 
In my geographical area it's becoming critical as a local competitor has a
legacy class B and can give away IP addresses as if
they're water.  I can not and they have an unfair competitive advantage. 
 
We should all be treated the same.
 
Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500 
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
assignments?(fwd)
 
Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.
 
You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.  
Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
government and legacy holders.
 
And you left off the part about:
 
"I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for 
authority to have the government obtain back that which the government 
gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've 
started to play with different theories here."
 
So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
any definitive opinion as you assert. 
 
Please tell the IETF you were wrong.
 
                --Dean
 
 
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
 
  

Thus spake "Dean Anderson"  <mailto:dean at av8.com> <dean at av8.com>
    

"Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
legacy assignments"
 
Where is this counsel statement?
      

http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
 
"MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like 
here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN 
is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit 
trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free 
services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services 
to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly 
permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
 
S
 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 
 
 
 
 
    

 
 
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071005/b49eb9c9/attachment.html>

From lambert at psc.edu  Fri Oct  5 10:59:24 2007
From: lambert at psc.edu (Michael Lambert)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:59:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
Message-ID: <A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>

On 5 Oct 2007, at 09:56, Thomas Leonard wrote:

> We should all be treated the same.

We are, with respect to IPv6.  So let's not put too much effort into  
solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in legacy address  
space.

Michael

-----
Michael H. Lambert, GigaPoP Coordinator        Phone: +1 412 268-4960
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center               FAX:   +1 412 268-5832
300 S Craig St, Pittsburgh, PA  15213 USA      lambert at psc.edu





From michael.dillon at bt.com  Fri Oct  5 11:06:33 2007
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:06:33 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <88F0426A-9583-4F07-B058-291F58BF6BF6@mia.net>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
	<88F0426A-9583-4F07-B058-291F58BF6BF6@mia.net>
Message-ID: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001267E1E@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>

> Not too name names, but you have several companies out there 
> that do not even adhere to ARIN's guidelines when it comes to 
> proper justification of IP allocation.  Some are now offering 
> hosting customers multiple class c ip space across hundreds 
> of class c's..  
> How can they do that?  How can I compete with that?    I am coming  
> very close to just giving my allocation back, and collecting 
> space from my upscales..

What you are describing is the result of very loose policies on the
status of prior allocations, and the lack of an effective audit
procedure. Of course, the current ARIN policy does not mandate any form
of auditing for prior allocations so that's why it is not done.

You could always join the PPML mailing list and make a formal proposal
for new policies to address these issues.

Before you do that, you might want to read the existing policy and see
what it says about "utilization". As near as I can see, the policy
accepts that an address range is "utilized" when the ISP says that it
is. So your competitor is probably compliant with ARIN's policies.

Beware of IP addressing folklore. There is a lot of opinion floating
around on the net about the rules under which IANA and ARIN manage
addresses. Most of it is folklore and does not have any basis in fact.
On more than one occasion I have run into a dead end trying to find out
something like the official reason for having a whois directory, or what
is the definition of "utilization".

--Michael Dillon


From mike at mathbox.com  Fri Oct  5 11:35:20 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:35:20 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>
Message-ID: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>

> We are, with respect to IPv6.  So let's not put too much effort into  
> solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in legacy address  
> space.

Actually everyone _is not_ treated the same for either. The pricing
structure for both IPV4 and IPV6 indicates that there are first class
citizens, second class citizens, third class, etc. Otherwise, everone would
pay exactly the same price per IP address.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Lambert
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:59 AM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel 
> statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd)
> 
> On 5 Oct 2007, at 09:56, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> 
> > We should all be treated the same.
> 
> We are, with respect to IPv6.  So let's not put too much effort into  
> solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in legacy address  
> space.
> 
> Michael
> 
> -----
> Michael H. Lambert, GigaPoP Coordinator        Phone: +1 412 268-4960
> Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center               FAX:   +1 412 268-5832
> 300 S Craig St, Pittsburgh, PA  15213 USA      lambert at psc.edu
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 




From woody at pch.net  Fri Oct  5 11:43:39 2007
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEGEDJEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>
References: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEGEDJEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0710050839570.14939@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, David Picard wrote:
    > Same thing for me...
    > Large cables operators in Quebec have a lot of Class B and they offer as may
    > ip as customers wants...
    > I cannot do this...

I suspect this is a misimpression, if an understandable one...  If the 
cable operators are large, they certainly have more customers than would 
be accommodated by a couple of actual legacy Class B networks.  That means 
that they're coming back to ARIN periodically to get more space.  If 
they're coming back for more space, they have to justify their current 
sub-allocations just as you do, and so they're operating under exactly the 
rules you do.  How many addresses a customer _wants_ is irrelevant. Both 
you and the cable operator have the same capacity to give them as many as 
they _need_.

                                -Bill



From druiz at anillonetworks.com  Fri Oct  5 11:45:35 2007
From: druiz at anillonetworks.com (Daniel Ruiz)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:45:35 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710042329070.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
	<200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAIngjtoDOkxGs0E+o8hcoaPCgAAAEAAAAEVuMGM2jopPuJUTSRB7IlcBAAAAAA==@anillonetworks.com>

I agree with ARIN counsel.

Daniel Ruiz

Senior Telecommunications Engineer

Anillo Networks, Inc.

655 S. Flower St. Suite 312

Los Angeles, CA 90017

(800) 544-0198

 

 

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be
secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, received late or incomplete, or could contain viruses. The sender
therefore does not accept liability for any error or omission in the
contents of this message, which arises as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version from the
sender.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Thomas Leonard
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 6:56 AM
To: 'Dean Anderson'; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
assignments?(fwd)

I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  Why should legacy customers get a
free ride.  We pay significantly more for our
allotment, so should they.  If they paid a fair price, all of our prices
would be reduced.  

In my geographical area it's becoming critical as a local competitor has a
legacy class B and can give away IP addresses as if
they're water.  I can not and they have an unfair competitive advantage. 

We should all be treated the same.

Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500 
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
assignments?(fwd)

Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.

You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.  
Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
government and legacy holders.

And you left off the part about:

"I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for 
authority to have the government obtain back that which the government 
gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've 
started to play with different theories here."

So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
any definitive opinion as you assert. 

Please tell the IETF you were wrong.

                --Dean


On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
> > "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
> > ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
> > legacy assignments"
> >
> > Where is this counsel statement?
> 
>
http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
> 
> "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like 
> here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN

> is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the
non-profit 
> trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free 
> services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services

> to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly

> permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   



_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Fri Oct  5 11:48:33 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:48:33 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
References: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <74DFE7B3-8334-4934-B581-1D0998195727@delong.com>


On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:

>> We are, with respect to IPv6.  So let's not put too much effort into
>> solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in legacy address
>> space.
>
> Actually everyone _is not_ treated the same for either. The pricing
> structure for both IPV4 and IPV6 indicates that there are first class
> citizens, second class citizens, third class, etc. Otherwise,  
> everone would
> pay exactly the same price per IP address.

Not true.  The pricing structure indicates that IP addresses are a  
mixture
of fixed and incremental costs.  This is also common in transactions of
wholesale goods.  Companies that buy a container of a product get a
much better price than companies that purchase a pallet of the product
at a time.  Companies that buy a pallet receive a better price than
companies that buy a case at a time.

While ARIN is not selling IP addresses, the reality is that to evaluate
an allocation request requires a certain amount of effort  regardless
of the size of the request.  Beyond that, a certain amount of effort
tends to be roughly proportionate to the size of the request.  Thus,
as the size of the address space allocated to a given organization
increases, the price per IP appears to decrease, but, that is because
the fixed cost portion of the price is not growing as the size of the
allocations grows.

Example (absurd numbers used to keep math easy):

Fixed costs to maintain an organization in the system: $1000

Per IP cost to maintain customers allocation records: $1

Customer with a /22:	$1000 + $1024 = $2024	$2024/1024 = 1.9765625

Customer with a /19:	$1000 + $8192 = $9192	$9192/8192 = 1.1220703

Customer with a /16:	$1000 + $65536 = $66536	$66536/65536 = 1.0152588

As you can see, the "apparent price" per IP drops somewhat  
substantially,
but, the reality is that the pricing is quite linear.

I have not evaluated the ARIN fee structure to see what this constant
is, and, there are some rounding and smoothing errors introduced
into ARIN pricing to simplify the fee structure vs. a unique price for
every customer.  However, it does roughly approximate such a
pricing structure, and, this is a very common practice for both sales
and service pricing.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Fri Oct  5 11:57:04 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:57:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
References: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <65825EC8-2B68-4F06-98D9-8B13DE4F9C00@delong.com>

As to the legacy holders getting a free ride, for those of you who  
think that
ARIN not charging them is giving them a competitive advantage, please
consider the following:

1.	It's pretty clear that ARIN revocation of legacy addresses is a  
non-starter.
	A.	The community does not seem to have the will to do it.
	B.	If the community wanted to do it, it is unclear how it would play  
out
		legally.
	C.	Even if ARIN were given clear legal authority to revoke such
		assignments, it is unclear what would happen on the internet.
	D.	The damage to the internet that would result from such an attempt
		far exceeds any likely gains that might come from it, so, generally,
		we end up back at A.

2.	The majority of legacy address holdings would be treated by ARIN as
	direct end-user assignments.  As such, their total ARIN fees would be
	$100 per year.  Some percentage of legacy holders are already paying
	this fee.  I doubt such a fee would have a significant impact on the
	competitive landscape.

3.	The majority of "free ride" complaints seem to center around the
	differences in the ability to obtain addresses more than the inequity
	in the cost of those addresses.  Due to 1, above, it is unlikely that
	any action ARIN could take would resolve this issue.  Also, the
	phrase "The early bird gets the worm" comes to mind in this
	scenario.  For any finite resource, the companies that begin
	exploiting the resource early tend to have an advantage over those
	who come later.  This is the nature of the beast.  Internet registered
	unique IPv4 addresses are a finite resource. Those who got them
	early have some advantage over those who did not. I don't see
	a practical way to change this fact retroactively.  I do think that
	the situation is somewhat better in IPv6, but, that a similar problem
	will probably appear if IPv6 ever becomes effectively finite.

Owen



From michael.dillon at bt.com  Fri Oct  5 12:08:27 2007
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:08:27 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement
	onLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
References: <A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>
	<200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001267EA9@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>

> Actually everyone _is not_ treated the same for either. The 
> pricing structure for both IPV4 and IPV6 indicates that there 
> are first class citizens, second class citizens, third class, 
> etc. Otherwise, everone would pay exactly the same price per 
> IP address.

Everyone does pay the same price, FREE!

My company pays an annual subscription fee to ARIN regardless of whether
we apply for additional addresses in that year or not. But when we do
apply for an allocation, we get it free, i.e. no charge. This is in
contrast to AS numbers for which we have to pay $500 for every one that
we get.

I'm surprised that ARIN member organizations, who elect the Board of
Trustees, are not more aware of the structure of ARIN fees. Check the
minutes of the second ARIN Members meeting for ARIN counsel's opinion
http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_II/. When I asked IANA/ICANN
for an official statement on the issue, this is what they said:

   Although ICANN has not issued any formal policy 
   statements, ICANN has consistently taken the 
   position that IP addresses are not property.

--Michael Dillon


From drechsau at Geeks.ORG  Fri Oct  5 11:39:59 2007
From: drechsau at Geeks.ORG (Mike Horwath)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:39:59 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
	<A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>
Message-ID: <20071005153959.GA84004@Geeks.ORG>

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:59:24AM -0400, Michael Lambert wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2007, at 09:56, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> 
> > We should all be treated the same.
> 
> We are, with respect to IPv6.  So let's not put too much effort into
> solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in legacy address
> space.

That just doesn't make any sense.

Let's just give the bird to legacy IPv4 and make everyone jump on the
bandwagon that is IPv6, that will solve the problem.  ??  I don't see
how your statement helps at all.

Of course, until the same problem occurs again because of the lack of
foresight and planning, then we can make a new bandwagon called IPv8
and make new hoops to jump through.

If IPv6 were implemented backbone wide tomorrow, we'd have years of
IPv4 to deal with, years of cleanup, years of people whining and
worrying about their IPv4 allocations.  Tunnels TUNNELs everywhere!
And how do we really address the systems and devices that can not, and
never will, deal with an IPv6 world?  Junk them all?  The .5 kabillion
Qwest DSL customers and their almost-shitty DSL modems will go up in
smoke, and asking someone, like Qwest, to put in a full IPv6 <-> IPv4
system to handle that many users is just silly.

IPv6 is not the savior, yet.

And no, I am not going to bitch about legacy IPv4 assignments and a
free ride, it comes down to 'too bad so sad'.

What do I care about?

The non-auditing of IPv4 space and the recollection of unused address
space (or over allocated space) back to the pool for others to use.

I am going to use MIT as my example, with no offense intended to MIT,
but does MIT *need* a /8 and other assignments?

Notice I said the word 'need'.

If auditing were to occur, there could eventually be a nice increase
in the amount of available IPv4 space for assignment, allowing for
more allocations, and the cleanup of legacy/free ride blocks into
revenue generating income for the non-profit that is ARIN.  This would
give what is needed to lower the cost *per block* to the companies and
organizations that pay today, and pave the way for more tools and
systems for IPv6.

Sorry to those that are MIT people, just picking an example of a ton
of address space where the majority of it *could* be unused.  If you
want to flame me using MIT as an example, please do it in private
email and not to the list.

As far as migration to IPv6 goes, I am almost looking forward to it
and thankfully, most of my devices are going to be ready/usuable in an
IPv6 world.

I can not say the same thing for my customers, and I am not looking
forward to the massively complex configurations I am going to have to
deal with to support another set of legacy issues.

-- 
Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau at Geeks.ORG


From mike at mathbox.com  Fri Oct  5 12:19:49 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:19:49 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml]
	Counselstatementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <05a601c80760$b03aaf70$2500000a@ytech.com>
Message-ID: <200710051219116.SM00820@mikesplace>

Ryan Yaldor, Brad Belton, Phillip Clark,

> I agree. There needs to be a fair and level playing field. I 
> would support any action to resolve this matter.

All above apparently agree that there needs to be a "fair and level playing
field".

Which playing field is that? The legacy assigned field, the multiple-level
priced IP address field, the member dues field?

In my opinion, ARIN and therefore the ARIN community has no privilege, no
right, no power over legacy holders. You are just ticked that the legacy
holders were here before you in the same manner that I am ticked that the
telephone companies have advantages with pole rights because they were here
before me.

Any discussion of legacy holders should be pushed up to IANA.

If you want to dicuss level playing fields within the ARIN community, why
not discuss same dollar cost per IP address, regardless of allocation size.
If I paid the same as price as those other guys (is that you?) then my $1250
/21 would cost less than $150.

Oh, that's correct. Someone on this list did say a couple of days ago, that
those price levels were established as a price barrier.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  





From jer at mia.net  Fri Oct  5 12:20:20 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:20:20 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
	<A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>
Message-ID: <D15905A8-FFA7-4D6B-A43B-E211B6EC0E36@mia.net>

On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Michael Lambert wrote:


> On 5 Oct 2007, at 09:56, Thomas Leonard wrote:
>
>
>> We should all be treated the same.
>>
>
> We are, with respect to IPv6.  So let's not put too much effort into
> solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in legacy address
> space.
>
>

Because not all of us work for a university... This is our money, our  
livelihoods.. When you are paying for something out of your own  
pocket, your opinions about things like this change greatly..

In that regard, we should all be treated the same..

Respectfully..

Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com






From jer at mia.net  Fri Oct  5 12:21:07 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:21:07 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
References: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <DD7FEC80-BD15-4A66-8682-428DB2273278@mia.net>


On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:

>> We are, with respect to IPv6.  So let's not put too much effort into
>> solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in legacy address
>> space.
>
> Actually everyone _is not_ treated the same for either. The pricing
> structure for both IPV4 and IPV6 indicates that there are first class
> citizens, second class citizens, third class, etc. Otherwise,  
> everone would
> pay exactly the same price per IP address.

Good point..

Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From jer at mia.net  Fri Oct  5 12:33:37 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:33:37 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385199@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385199@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <C4D5C60F-DE64-4E2B-945C-2782F860C272@mia.net>


On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
>
> It concerns me that getting space is like pulling teeth.  Can
> you suggest things ARIN should do differently?

I did not mean to segway the discussion.. My comment is directed more  
so at the work involved in generating enough of an illustration of  
network utilization.  Couple this with the fact that everyone has to  
fudge a bit else we would all run out of space before we received a  
new allocation.  I think way too much emphasis is still put on this  
false idea that we are running out of, or will run out of IP space;  
much was the case in the past.

It's not impossible.. But it is not a pleasant exercise in time spent  
by a person in our employment...   Anyway,  I digress.. I really do  
not want to distract from the original point at hand, which is, some  
of us are not being treated equally...
>
>> Our initial
>> allotment is too small IMO, and to get more, frankly, is just
>> not cost affective for us.  It is really disturbing; the wide
>> range of price bias across the IP spectrum.
>
> What would you suggest.  I'm especially interested in what
> the theoretical basis for a fee structure should be.

The difficulty we have/had in the past is that in order to justify  
our initial allocation, IMO, I think we were forced to be way too  
conservative.  That said, the allocation we have at present is not  
cost affect, when compared to a much larger allocation.  That said,  
the only way for us to see a level pricing structure with regards to  
an increased allocation, is to move out of our current allocation.

For example, if we were able to extend our block, (assuming no one is  
above us or below us) we would easily pay less than if we just bought  
another /20.   I think the fee structure charges more to increase  
your allocation, when you cannot increase the netblock you are in  
because, again, someone is in the space below you, or above you.

I'd like to be able to increase to say, a /19 from a /20 and pay the / 
19 price, but I cannot do that.. Does that make sense?  It would be  
nice if there were some way to increase our network allocation,  
outside of our own allocation but still pay the same rate based on  
the TOTAL allocation... If that makes sense..

Also, from a cash flow perspective, I would rather pay MONTHLY, than  
annually.. It would make it much easier for us and other ISP's from a  
cash flow perspective to charge out our IP services on monthly  
basis.  We could then better justify buying a larger allocation, and  
in the long run, save money, but buying more for less.
>>>
>
> You can name names to ARIN staff at hostmaster at arin.net.
> You may not hear anything back, to maintain NDA agreements.

I'd rather not.. For one, it is blatantly obvious, for another, I  
really do not see that as being very productive.. I am of the opinion  
that the old rules were based on a belief that we would run out of IP  
space.. Since that was never, and is not the case, I think that the  
IP Justification sheets most of us use should be modified to reflect  
this fact.
>>
>
> Definitely.  Most of the staff read PPML, and all of the Board
> members and Advisory Council.

I'm sure you all do, and you do a great job!  This is probably the  
busiest I have ever seen this list...
>
> I'm the Treasurer and a Board member, so I'd like to heard more
> detail about what should be done differently.
>

Thank you for listening..


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From jer at mia.net  Fri Oct  5 12:35:18 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:35:18 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0710050839570.14939@paixhost.pch.net>
References: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEGEDJEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>
	<Pine.SOC.4.61.0710050839570.14939@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <F63882CE-F01B-46BF-9ADC-A1E27D961BD2@mia.net>


On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:

>       On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, David Picard wrote:
>> Same thing for me...
>> Large cables operators in Quebec have a lot of Class B and they  
>> offer as may
>> ip as customers wants...
>> I cannot do this...
>
> I suspect this is a misimpression, if an understandable one...  If the
> cable operators are large, they certainly have more customers than  
> would
> be accommodated by a couple of actual legacy Class B networks.   
> That means
> that they're coming back to ARIN periodically to get more space.  If
> they're coming back for more space, they have to justify their current
> sub-allocations just as you do, and so they're operating under  
> exactly the
> rules you do.  How many addresses a customer _wants_ is irrelevant.  
> Both
> you and the cable operator have the same capacity to give them as  
> many as
> they _need_.
>
>

True, but when the do the re-allocation and re-examine everything do  
they then say, "hey, you should be paying for this other space now"?


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From owen at delong.com  Fri Oct  5 12:45:13 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:45:13 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <C4D5C60F-DE64-4E2B-945C-2782F860C272@mia.net>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385199@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
	<C4D5C60F-DE64-4E2B-945C-2782F860C272@mia.net>
Message-ID: <403A33D8-60AA-4374-BE31-381E84A3ED56@delong.com>

> For example, if we were able to extend our block, (assuming no one is
> above us or below us) we would easily pay less than if we just bought
> another /20.   I think the fee structure charges more to increase
> your allocation, when you cannot increase the netblock you are in
> because, again, someone is in the space below you, or above you.
>
This is not true.  The cost of two separate /20s is the same as a /19
under the ISP rules.  The prices are based on the aggregate sum of
all your address spaces, not each individual allocation (assuming all
allocations are under the same ORG).

If you have two /20s, then, for billing purposes, you are a /19 and you
would pay the /19 price.

> I'd like to be able to increase to say, a /19 from a /20 and pay the /
> 19 price, but I cannot do that.. Does that make sense?  It would be
> nice if there were some way to increase our network allocation,
> outside of our own allocation but still pay the same rate based on
> the TOTAL allocation... If that makes sense..
>
That is exactly how it works.

> Also, from a cash flow perspective, I would rather pay MONTHLY, than
> annually.. It would make it much easier for us and other ISP's from a
> cash flow perspective to charge out our IP services on monthly
> basis.  We could then better justify buying a larger allocation, and
> in the long run, save money, but buying more for less.

You are not BUYING an allocation.  You are paying for a registration
service.  In terms of managing the cash flow, get a small loan to pay
your ARIN fees and then make monthly payments on the loan and
you have the same cash flow. I don't think that I want to see the very
small staff at ARIN tied up managing monthly instead of annual
bills or a mixture of customers who prefer different billing cycles.

Would you want to pay for the additional headcount at ARIN to support
such a thing in order to get monthly bills?

Owen




From michael at rancid.berkeley.edu  Fri Oct  5 12:48:55 2007
From: michael at rancid.berkeley.edu (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:48:55 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <20071005153959.GA84004@Geeks.ORG>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>	<A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>
	<20071005153959.GA84004@Geeks.ORG>
Message-ID: <47066AF7.7080607@rancid.berkeley.edu>

Mike Horwath wrote:


> If auditing were to occur, there could eventually be a nice increase
> in the amount of available IPv4 space for assignment, allowing for
> more allocations, and the cleanup of legacy/free ride blocks into
> revenue generating income for the non-profit that is ARIN.  This would
> give what is needed to lower the cost *per block* to the companies and
> organizations that pay today, and pave the way for more tools and
> systems for IPv6.

If by "nice increase," you mean two or three fat juicy /8s and the dregs 
of the swamp /24s, then that doesn't really seem worth it to me.  As of 
this past summer, the IPv4 available pool consisted of 49 /8s, and we 
don't think that's going to last us more than a few years.  Given the 
legal issues (regardless of who ends up being legally correct, there 
_will_ likely be a fight), the effort to audit and reclaim legacy space, 
whether it's MIT's space or Interop's or GE's or the US Government's, so 
that we can squeeze the last muddy drops out of the IPv4 pool and get 
6-12 more months of IPv4 just doesn't make sense to me.  We're better 
off putting our energies into IPv6.  No, it's not our savior, but to 
paraphrase Paul Vixie, it's all we have right now.

I'd prefer that the communities' energies (and ARIN's) go to promoting 
IPv6 traction rather than scraping the bottom of the IPv4 barrel, 
especially when we don't _really_ know what's down there.

michael



From jer at mia.net  Fri Oct  5 13:01:59 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:01:59 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <403A33D8-60AA-4374-BE31-381E84A3ED56@delong.com>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385199@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
	<C4D5C60F-DE64-4E2B-945C-2782F860C272@mia.net>
	<403A33D8-60AA-4374-BE31-381E84A3ED56@delong.com>
Message-ID: <A9C4997D-47EA-43A8-8AC6-C90A73A719B5@mia.net>


On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> For example, if we were able to extend our block, (assuming no one is
>> above us or below us) we would easily pay less than if we just bought
>> another /20.   I think the fee structure charges more to increase
>> your allocation, when you cannot increase the netblock you are in
>> because, again, someone is in the space below you, or above you.
>>
> This is not true.  The cost of two separate /20s is the same as a /19
> under the ISP rules.  The prices are based on the aggregate sum of
> all your address spaces, not each individual allocation (assuming all
> allocations are under the same ORG).
>
> If you have two /20s, then, for billing purposes, you are a /19 and  
> you
> would pay the /19 price.

Insert foot in mouth.. Thank you for the clarification..

So in other words, I could go from a /20 to  a /19 and still pay what  
I am currently paying?  Great, how do I begin that process?  I am out  
of space.
>
>> I'd like to be able to increase to say, a /19 from a /20 and pay  
>> the /
>> 19 price, but I cannot do that.. Does that make sense?  It would be
>> nice if there were some way to increase our network allocation,
>> outside of our own allocation but still pay the same rate based on
>> the TOTAL allocation... If that makes sense..
>>
> That is exactly how it works.

Great.. Thank you.
>
>> Also, from a cash flow perspective, I would rather pay MONTHLY, than
>> annually.. It would make it much easier for us and other ISP's from a
>> cash flow perspective to charge out our IP services on monthly
>> basis.  We could then better justify buying a larger allocation, and
>> in the long run, save money, but buying more for less.
>
> You are not BUYING an allocation.  You are paying for a registration
> service.  In terms of managing the cash flow, get a small loan to pay
> your ARIN fees and then make monthly payments on the loan and
> you have the same cash flow. I don't think that I want to see the very
> small staff at ARIN tied up managing monthly instead of annual
> bills or a mixture of customers who prefer different billing cycles.

The annual is not killing me.. Getting a loan would be stupid for  
such an amount.. What I am getting at is I run my business on 30 day  
payables... I know of no other service that requires an annual,  
upfront payment for services.  Imagine if I had to pay for my fiber  
annually... OUCH!!!
>
> Would you want to pay for the additional headcount at ARIN to support
> such a thing in order to get monthly bills?
>
>
I really do not think it could cost that much to maintaining  
accounting of money coming in.. ;-)

Thanks again for the input and clarification!

Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From steven at 19thfloor.net  Fri Oct  5 13:07:04 2007
From: steven at 19thfloor.net (Steven Raposo)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:07:04 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement
	on	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEGEDJEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>
References: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEGEDJEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>
Message-ID: <47066F38.9030800@19thfloor.net>

I agree completely. It's ridiculous and should be changed.


______________________________________________________
Steven P Raposo
Special Accounts Manager
19th Floor Inc. (http://19thfloor.net)

David Picard wrote:
> I agree with this.
>
> Same thing for me...
>
> Large cables operators in Quebec have a lot of Class B and they offer as may
> ip as customers wants...
> I cannot do this...
>
>
> David Picard
> ---------------------------------------------
> Administrateur reseau / Network administrator
> Internet Galilee
> www.sogetel.net
>
> david.picard at sogetel.com
> 1-866-764-3835 x1271
> 1-819-293-1271
>
>
>
> "CONFIDENTIALITE  Ce document transmis par courrier electronique est destine
> uniquement a la personne ou a l'entite a qui il est adresse et peut contenir
>  des renseignements confidentiels.  La confidentialite demeure malgre
> l'envoi de ce document a la mauvaise adresse electronique.  Si vous n'etes
> pas le destinataire vise ou la personne chargee de remettre ce document a
> son destinataire, veuillez nous en informer sans delai et detruire ce
> document.  Toute distribution, reproduction ou autre utilisation de ce
> document est interdite sans notre consentement."
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]De la part de Thomas Leonard
> Envoye : 5 octobre 2007 09:56
> A : 'Dean Anderson'; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Objet : Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
> Legacyassignments?(fwd)
>
>
> I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  Why should legacy customers get a
> free ride.  We pay significantly more for our
> allotment, so should they.  If they paid a fair price, all of our prices
> would be reduced.
>
> In my geographical area it's becoming critical as a local competitor has a
> legacy class B and can give away IP addresses as if
> they're water.  I can not and they have an unfair competitive advantage.
>
> We should all be treated the same.
>
> Thomas Leonard
> LANline Communications, Inc.
> 48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
> White Plains, NY 10601
> 914-397-0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
> assignments?(fwd)
>
> Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.
>
> You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
> and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
> any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.
> Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
> government and legacy holders.
>
> And you left off the part about:
>
> "I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for
> authority to have the government obtain back that which the government
> gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've
> started to play with different theories here."
>
> So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
> any definitive opinion as you assert.
>
> Please tell the IETF you were wrong.
>
>                 --Dean
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>   
>> Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
>>     
>>> "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
>>> ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
>>> legacy assignments"
>>>
>>> Where is this counsel statement?
>>>       
>>     
> http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
>   
>> "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like
>> here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN
>> is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the
>>     
> non-profit
>   
>> trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free
>> services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services
>> to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly
>> permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
>>
>> S
>>
>> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
>> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
>> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
> --
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
> Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
> Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071005/a497de1f/attachment.html>

From captain at netidea.com  Fri Oct  5 13:11:19 2007
From: captain at netidea.com (Kirk Ismay)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:11:19 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement
	on	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <47066AF7.7080607@rancid.berkeley.edu>
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>	<A323B07F-D6E6-4220-BDB2-C68C321302FE@psc.edu>	<20071005153959.GA84004@Geeks.ORG>
	<47066AF7.7080607@rancid.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <47067037.2000009@netidea.com>


>
> I'd prefer that the communities' energies (and ARIN's) go to promoting 
> IPv6 traction rather than scraping the bottom of the IPv4 barrel, 
> especially when we don't _really_ know what's down there.
>
>   
I agree with focusing on the future.

-- 

Sincerely, 
Kirk Ismay
System Administrator

--
Net Idea
201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6
P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512

Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com



From chad at onr.com  Fri Oct  5 13:29:13 2007
From: chad at onr.com (Chad Kissinger)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:29:13 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel
	statementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <47067037.2000009@netidea.com>
Message-ID: <6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F034CEC16@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>



It would seem to me that the fee should be based on a per-IP number
basis.  Why should some company that has many, many times my allocation
pay less than twice as much as I do per year?  

I think the argument that what you are really paying for is registration
service is specious.... what am I paying for in a year in which I don't
require any registration services?  I've been in the ISP business now
for 14 years and I think I've gone through approximately 5 allocations
in that time... most years I don't need any registration service at all.


Why, during those years when I don't need more IP space, is my fee
higher than someone else who actually did go through a registration
process in that year... just because my existing blocks are bigger?

It would seem that existing policy is that you do pay on a per-IP basis
up to a certain point (/14 in IPv4), and then it's all you can eat.  

I think the policy should be:

The Yearly cost of maintaining an allocation should equal Arin's total
annual costs divided by the total number of IP numbers allocated times
the total number of IPs being used by the member.  

Right now, as your allocations get larger, you have less and less of an
incentive to worry about whether or not you are wasting IP space.  A per
IP number fee policy would align the community's interests (i.e.
conservation of IP space) with the financial interests of the members
using the space.  Right now IP space is effectively a "commons" and we
are seeing the "tragedy of the commons".  


Onramp Access
chad kissinger  |  president  |  onramp access, inc. 
p: 512.322.9200  |  f: 512.476.2878  |  www.onr.com
your internet operations  |  built  |  deployed  |  managed

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kirk Ismay
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:11 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementon Legacy
assignments?(fwd)


>
> I'd prefer that the communities' energies (and ARIN's) go to promoting

> IPv6 traction rather than scraping the bottom of the IPv4 barrel, 
> especially when we don't _really_ know what's down there.
>
>   
I agree with focusing on the future.

-- 

Sincerely, 
Kirk Ismay
System Administrator

--
Net Idea
201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6
P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512

Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the
ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From bdykes at viawest.net  Fri Oct  5 13:54:51 2007
From: bdykes at viawest.net (Barry Dykes)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:54:51 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml]
	Counsel	statementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F034CEC16@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
References: <47067037.2000009@netidea.com>
	<6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F034CEC16@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
Message-ID: <0FCF1DAC85A3A5489C2D5183E2C4B2E34C669716@mbx01.citservers.local>

One of the things that a flat fee would discourage is IP address aggregation.  Today, most businesses get their IP addresses from their upstream provider (most commonly at no additional cost...).  Partially the no additional cost comes from the fact that the service provider will incur a summary cost increase only if he breaks into another payment tier.
        However, should there be a flat fee per IP address the incentive to use your upstream IP address allocation would probably go away since the cost would surely be passed on to the customer.  Once this occurs, the customer would do just as well to get their own block from ARIN.  Now that everyone has dis-contiguous IP blocks (even when connected to the same provider), the routing tables increase dramatically in size (no ability to aggregate announcements), every change that occurs is no longer isolated to the providers backbone - but propagates throughout the Internet (so let's all change routing tables constantly).
        So I'm not really on board with a flat IP cost...  There needs to be some incentive to aggregate, and the best incentive is usually economic.

Thanks,


Barry Dykes
Vice President Engineering/Operations
ViaWest, Inc.
Office: 303.407.4708
Fax: 303.885.4999
www.viawest.net


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chad Kissinger
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:29 AM
To: Kirk Ismay; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)



It would seem to me that the fee should be based on a per-IP number
basis.  Why should some company that has many, many times my allocation
pay less than twice as much as I do per year?

I think the argument that what you are really paying for is registration
service is specious.... what am I paying for in a year in which I don't
require any registration services?  I've been in the ISP business now
for 14 years and I think I've gone through approximately 5 allocations
in that time... most years I don't need any registration service at all.


Why, during those years when I don't need more IP space, is my fee
higher than someone else who actually did go through a registration
process in that year... just because my existing blocks are bigger?

It would seem that existing policy is that you do pay on a per-IP basis
up to a certain point (/14 in IPv4), and then it's all you can eat.

I think the policy should be:

The Yearly cost of maintaining an allocation should equal Arin's total
annual costs divided by the total number of IP numbers allocated times
the total number of IPs being used by the member.

Right now, as your allocations get larger, you have less and less of an
incentive to worry about whether or not you are wasting IP space.  A per
IP number fee policy would align the community's interests (i.e.
conservation of IP space) with the financial interests of the members
using the space.  Right now IP space is effectively a "commons" and we
are seeing the "tragedy of the commons".


Onramp Access
chad kissinger  |  president  |  onramp access, inc.
p: 512.322.9200  |  f: 512.476.2878  |  www.onr.com
your internet operations  |  built  |  deployed  |  managed

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kirk Ismay
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:11 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementon Legacy
assignments?(fwd)


>
> I'd prefer that the communities' energies (and ARIN's) go to promoting

> IPv6 traction rather than scraping the bottom of the IPv4 barrel,
> especially when we don't _really_ know what's down there.
>
>
I agree with focusing on the future.

--

Sincerely,
Kirk Ismay
System Administrator

--
Net Idea
201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6
P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512

Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the
ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From michael at rancid.berkeley.edu  Fri Oct  5 13:57:22 2007
From: michael at rancid.berkeley.edu (Michael Sinatra)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:57:22 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml]
	Counsel	statementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F034CEC16@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
References: <6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F034CEC16@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
Message-ID: <47067B02.40509@rancid.berkeley.edu>

Chad Kissinger wrote:
> 
> It would seem to me that the fee should be based on a per-IP number
> basis.  Why should some company that has many, many times my allocation
> pay less than twice as much as I do per year?  
> 
> I think the argument that what you are really paying for is registration
> service is specious.... what am I paying for in a year in which I don't
> require any registration services?  I've been in the ISP business now
> for 14 years and I think I've gone through approximately 5 allocations
> in that time... most years I don't need any registration service at all.

Presumably, during that year, someone (probably many, many people) tried 
to do rDNS lookups in your IP block.  Many people probably did whois 
lookups for that IP block.  Making rDNS and whois work is part of ARIN's 
registration service and it is a constant operation.

michael


From paul at vix.com  Fri Oct  5 14:09:46 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:09:46 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:56:11 -0400."
	<200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> 
References: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> 
Message-ID: <11412.1191607786@sa.vix.com>

> I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  Why should legacy customers get a
> free ride.  ...

that's not what counsel said.  he didn't mention good will costs, only legal
obligations.  when he said "there is no legal obligation" he means there is no
liability to ARIN if we stop doing it.  if you ask counsel whether he thinks
it's a good idea, or whether it would be good for the community or good for
the organization, you'll get some answer on a completely different basis.


From mike at mathbox.com  Fri Oct  5 14:36:11 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:36:11 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement
	onLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <A9C4997D-47EA-43A8-8AC6-C90A73A719B5@mia.net>
Message-ID: <200710051436856.SM01988@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy 
> Anthony Kinsey
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:02 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel 
> statement onLegacyassignments?(fwd)
> 
> 
> On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> >> For example, if we were able to extend our block, 
> (assuming no one is
> >> above us or below us) we would easily pay less than if we 
> just bought
> >> another /20.   I think the fee structure charges more to increase
> >> your allocation, when you cannot increase the netblock you are in
> >> because, again, someone is in the space below you, or above you.
> >>
> > This is not true.  The cost of two separate /20s is the 
> same as a /19
> > under the ISP rules.  The prices are based on the aggregate sum of
> > all your address spaces, not each individual allocation 
> (assuming all
> > allocations are under the same ORG).
> >
> > If you have two /20s, then, for billing purposes, you are a 
> /19 and  
> > you
> > would pay the /19 price.
> 
> Insert foot in mouth.. Thank you for the clarification..
> 
> So in other words, I could go from a /20 to  a /19 and still 
> pay what  
> I am currently paying?  Great, how do I begin that process?  
> I am out  
> of space.
> >
> >> I'd like to be able to increase to say, a /19 from a /20 and pay  
> >> the /
> >> 19 price, but I cannot do that.. Does that make sense?  It would be
> >> nice if there were some way to increase our network allocation,
> >> outside of our own allocation but still pay the same rate based on
> >> the TOTAL allocation... If that makes sense..
> >>
> > That is exactly how it works.
> 
> Great.. Thank you.
> >
> >> Also, from a cash flow perspective, I would rather pay 
> MONTHLY, than
> >> annually.. It would make it much easier for us and other 
> ISP's from a
> >> cash flow perspective to charge out our IP services on monthly
> >> basis.  We could then better justify buying a larger 
> allocation, and
> >> in the long run, save money, but buying more for less.
> >
> > You are not BUYING an allocation.  You are paying for a registration
> > service.  In terms of managing the cash flow, get a small 
> loan to pay
> > your ARIN fees and then make monthly payments on the loan and
> > you have the same cash flow. I don't think that I want to 
> see the very
> > small staff at ARIN tied up managing monthly instead of annual
> > bills or a mixture of customers who prefer different billing cycles.
> 
> The annual is not killing me.. Getting a loan would be stupid for  
> such an amount.. What I am getting at is I run my business on 30 day  
> payables... I know of no other service that requires an annual,  
> upfront payment for services.  Imagine if I had to pay for my fiber  
> annually... OUCH!!!
> >
> > Would you want to pay for the additional headcount at ARIN 
> to support
> > such a thing in order to get monthly bills?
> >
> >
> I really do not think it could cost that much to maintaining  
> accounting of money coming in.. ;-)
> 
> Thanks again for the input and clarification!
> 
> Regards,
> Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
>   e-mail: jer at mia.net
> _____________________________________
> Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
> 401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
> Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
> Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
> Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Jeremy,

I would agree with you, except for one issue, billing costs. As many do, we
offer a discount to our customers for an up-front annual payment. We do so,
not to get the money up front, but to avoid the billing/tracking overhead.
The money up front doesn't hurt, but it is not the point. So, I would argue
that for smaller companies, where the annual outlay up-front is a barrier to
entry, then ARIN should offer monthly payments, but that there should be a
monthly account maintenance fee for doing so.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From michael.dillon at bt.com  Fri Oct  5 14:49:36 2007
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:49:36 +0100
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml]
	Counselstatementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F034CEC16@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
References: <47067037.2000009@netidea.com>
	<6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F034CEC16@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
Message-ID: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001267F11@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>

> I think the argument that what you are really paying for is 
> registration service is specious.... 

It's not specious. ARIN is a non-profit corporation under Virginia law.
It has a charter, it has bylaws, it has members and it has a Board of
Trustees. The members (like you and me) elected the Trustees and they
decided what the fees are paying for. Twice a year they tell us all
about it with financial reports at the ARIN meetings. We can see the
revenue, the expenses, the savings account to cover emergencies. We can
see how the fees are broken down and that they are calculated as largely
paying for registration services.

> what am I paying for in 
> a year in which I don't require any registration services?  

Clearly you are not paying for IP addresses. You are supporting the
operation of a non-profit membership organization so that things like
the whois directory and in-addr.arpa service keeps running. You are also
supporting a stewardship structure for managing IP addresses rather than
letting it be run by a government bureaucracy or some pirate
capitalists.

> Why, during those years when I don't need more IP space, is 
> my fee higher than someone else who actually did go through a 
> registration process in that year... just because my existing 
> blocks are bigger?

Because you screwed up when you applied for your allocation and didn't
ask for just 6 months worth like you should have. Fortunately, ARIN does
not actively punish you for this. You just end up paying the same fees
that you would have if you had come back for more addresses twice per
year.

> It would seem that existing policy is that you do pay on a 
> per-IP basis up to a certain point (/14 in IPv4), and then 
> it's all you can eat.  
> 
> I think the policy should be:

The fee structure is not a matter of ARIN policy. It is decided by the
Board of Trustees. Of course they can and do consult members on this.
The newly announced fee structure incorporates a couple of suggestions
that I made to a BOT member a while back.

> The Yearly cost of maintaining an allocation should equal 
> Arin's total annual costs divided by the total number of IP 
> numbers allocated times the total number of IPs being used by 
> the member.  

Because the legal status of IP addresses has not yet been decided in the
courts, the BOT is quite wisely stearing clear of fees which might imply
that you are paying rent per IP address.

> Right now, as your allocations get larger, you have less and 
> less of an incentive to worry about whether or not you are 
> wasting IP space.

Fees are not allowed to be an instrument of ARIN policy. If you want to
give people incentives, they have to be done without fees. You could
propose some form of regular audits of past allocations. You could
specify best-practices that members must adhere to. Like with phone
numbers, you could require all members to file monthly reports of
utilization with projected runout dates. But you can't touch fees.

And no matter what you suggest, it will never happen unless a majority
of members agree, and a substantial majority of the Advisory Council
aggrees, and ARIN Counsel agrees that it is legal and within ARIN's
Power, and the Board of Trustees agrees. It is rarely possible to sell a
well-crafted proposal. Most of the time, you need to compromise a lot,
water things down, and settle for just making things a bit better.

--Michael Dillon


From mike at mathbox.com  Fri Oct  5 15:06:26 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:06:26 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <8DC42B89-997F-4167-97C7-6117276FF195@delong.com>
Message-ID: <200710051506352.SM01552@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:01 PM
> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel 
> statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd)
> 
> 
> On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
> 
> > Owen,
> >
> > Then ARIN should state the flat fee for processing a block. The  
> > price per IP
> > should be the same. ARIN _does not manufacture_ IP 
> addresses. There  
> > is no
> > cost savings in _not manufacturing_ a smaller block versus a large  
> > block. In
> > fact it costs ARIN _MORE_ to support the large block, because the  
> > large
> > block requires more RDNS entries.
> >
> That's simply not true.  A /16 requires 1 RDNS entry.  A /20 
> requires  
> 16.
> A /24 requires 1.
> 
> However, the cost of generating the RDNS entries is not 
> linear, either.
> 
> The increased costs in a block come more from things like the 
> churn rate
> of SWIPs, the number of SWIPs the block is subdivided into, 
> and a number
> of other ancillary functions which cannot be accurately 
> measured at the
> time of issuance.  To ARIN, a /24 to a customer of an ISP is virtually
> identical in incremental costs to a /29 to a customer of an ISP.
> 
> You are right that ARIN does not manufacture IPs.  However, it does  
> often
> cost ARIN more to process an application for a smaller block than a  
> larger
> one because the smaller applications often come from ISPs whose  
> personnel
> are less familiar with the process and policies and thus 
> require more  
> hand-holding
> and staff time.  Staff time is probably the biggest cost factor in  
> ARIN IP
> allocations.
> 
> I know that for the assignments and allocations I have 
> requested over  
> the
> last 3 years, I simply cannot compare the process to pulling teeth.   
> It has
> been relatively quick, simple, and painless to me.  In fact, my last  
> assignment
> was processed in less than 24 hours from initial paperwork through  
> billing
> and RSA all the way to addresses.
> 
> An ISP who has a total of fewer than 4096 IP addresses pays 
> $1,250/year.
> That works out to approximately $0.31/IP address.
> 
> An ISP who has between 4097 and 8192 IP addresses pays $2,250/year.
> That works out to approximately $0.27/IP address.
> 
>  From 8193 to 65536 total IP addresses, the cost is $4,500/year.
> This is approximately $0.07/IP address.
> 
> However, if we consider it along these lines... Let's assume 
> that the  
> fixed costs
> for preserving an allocation in the system are on the order of $750/ 
> year, then,
> we see something that looks like this:
> 
> x-Small (<=4096 IPs) = $750 + $500 = $0.12/IP
> Small (4097-8192 IPs) = $750 + $1500 = $0.18/IP
> Medium (8193-65536 IPs) = $750 + $3750 = $0.05/IP
> Large (65537-262144 IPs) = $750 + $8250 = $0.03/IP
> 
> As you can see, $750 is probably the wrong fixed cost number, but,  
> probably not
> too far off.  The cost per IP at the low end remains slightly high,  
> but, the taper at
> the higher end is relatively linear.  I believe this accurately  
> reflects the fact that
> on x-Small and Small allocations, staff tends to have to spend more  
> time working
> with the ISP on their requests.  Medium and bigger 
> organizations tend  
> to have
> people who manage the IP records as their full-time job and the  
> become quite
> skilled with the ARIN process and the record keeping necessary to  
> make that
> happen smoothly.  As such, it costs less for ARIN to deal with them,  
> and, these
> cost savings are reflected in the pricing.
> 
> BTW, before you think I represent some large ISP and have 
> some gain from
> the status quo of pricing, in actual fact, most of my ARIN  
> transactions are
> end-user direct assignments.  The majority of them do not 
> exceed a /20.
> 
> Owen
> 
> > Michael Thomas
> > Mathbox
> > 978-683-6718
> > 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:49 AM
> >> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox
> >> Cc: 'Michael Lambert'; arin-discuss at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel
> >> statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd)
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
> >>
> >>>> We are, with respect to IPv6.  So let's not put too much
> >> effort into
> >>>> solving the pricing problem of legacy assignments in 
> legacy address
> >>>> space.
> >>>
> >>> Actually everyone _is not_ treated the same for either. 
> The pricing
> >>> structure for both IPV4 and IPV6 indicates that there are
> >> first class
> >>> citizens, second class citizens, third class, etc. Otherwise,
> >>> everone would
> >>> pay exactly the same price per IP address.
> >>
> >> Not true.  The pricing structure indicates that IP addresses are a
> >> mixture
> >> of fixed and incremental costs.  This is also common in
> >> transactions of
> >> wholesale goods.  Companies that buy a container of a product get a
> >> much better price than companies that purchase a pallet of the  
> >> product
> >> at a time.  Companies that buy a pallet receive a better price than
> >> companies that buy a case at a time.
> >>
> >> While ARIN is not selling IP addresses, the reality is that
> >> to evaluate
> >> an allocation request requires a certain amount of effort  
> regardless
> >> of the size of the request.  Beyond that, a certain amount 
> of effort
> >> tends to be roughly proportionate to the size of the 
> request.  Thus,
> >> as the size of the address space allocated to a given organization
> >> increases, the price per IP appears to decrease, but, that 
> is because
> >> the fixed cost portion of the price is not growing as the 
> size of the
> >> allocations grows.
> >>
> >> Example (absurd numbers used to keep math easy):
> >>
> >> Fixed costs to maintain an organization in the system: $1000
> >>
> >> Per IP cost to maintain customers allocation records: $1
> >>
> >> Customer with a /22:	$1000 + $1024 = $2024	
> $2024/1024 = 1.9765625
> >>
> >> Customer with a /19:	$1000 + $8192 = $9192	
> $9192/8192 = 1.1220703
> >>
> >> Customer with a /16:	$1000 + $65536 = $66536	
> $66536/65536 = 1.0152588
> >>
> >> As you can see, the "apparent price" per IP drops somewhat
> >> substantially,
> >> but, the reality is that the pricing is quite linear.
> >>
> >> I have not evaluated the ARIN fee structure to see what 
> this constant
> >> is, and, there are some rounding and smoothing errors introduced
> >> into ARIN pricing to simplify the fee structure vs. a 
> unique price  
> >> for
> >> every customer.  However, it does roughly approximate such a
> >> pricing structure, and, this is a very common practice for 
> both sales
> >> and service pricing.
> >>
> >> Owen

Owen,

For several reasons, I honestly do not believe that your cost allocation is
accurate.

1. In another message unrelated to this one, you point out to Jeremy that
someone returning for another allocation does not pay separately for each
allocation.

2. In the second and subsequent years of an allocation, one still pays the
entire fee. If your argument held water, the second and subsequent year fees
would be reduced by the application processing cost and would reflect only
the maintenance cost.

3. Comparing the time to review an intial /24, /23, /22, /21 allocation to a
/14 or larger allocation as taking longer due to the applicant being
unfamiliar with the process is questionable. The allocation of a larger
block should actually be scrutinized more heavily, because it removes more
resources from the available pool.

4. If in fact the total cost is based on application costs and maintenance
costs, the fees would reflect that.

5. I just paid my second annual fee. The cost was the same as last year. I
did not make any applications this year.

6. The fees are based on the total size of all allocations. You have said
so.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From berger at shout.net  Fri Oct  5 15:29:54 2007
From: berger at shout.net (Mike Berger)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:29:54 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel
	statement	onLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051436856.SM01988@mikesplace>
References: <200710051436856.SM01988@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <470690B2.8040506@shout.net>

My newspaper subscription (and a few magazines) are on an annual basis.  
Some of
the local ISP's also offer billing on an annual basis.  My homeowners 
and auto insurance
both have annual payment options (and it wasn't an option for my 
business insurance,
it was mandatory).  Automobile registration fees are on an annual 
basis.  I pay my
alarm monitoring service annually.

So now you know there are lots of businesses that bill annually.

For the people who don't think billing monthly adds much to the cost of 
business,
I suspect you've never been in a business where you have to bill a 
significant
number of clients.  Imagine having to deal with 12 times the paperwork,
12 times the costs of dealing with late payments, and 12 times the bank 
processing
fees.

Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
>>
>> The annual is not killing me.. Getting a loan would be stupid for  
>> such an amount.. What I am getting at is I run my business on 30 day  
>> payables... I know of no other service that requires an annual,  
>> upfront payment for services.  Imagine if I had to pay for my fiber  
>> annually... OUCH!!!
>>     




From mike at mathbox.com  Fri Oct  5 15:31:40 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:31:40 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:
	[ppml]Counsel	statementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <0FCF1DAC85A3A5489C2D5183E2C4B2E34C669716@mbx01.citservers.local>
Message-ID: <200710051531658.SM02808@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Barry Dykes
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:55 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counsel 
> statementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)
> 
> One of the things that a flat fee would discourage is IP 
> address aggregation.  Today, most businesses get their IP 
> addresses from their upstream provider (most commonly at no 
> additional cost...).  Partially the no additional cost comes 
> from the fact that the service provider will incur a summary 
> cost increase only if he breaks into another payment tier.
>         However, should there be a flat fee per IP address 
> the incentive to use your upstream IP address allocation 
> would probably go away since the cost would surely be passed 
> on to the customer.  Once this occurs, the customer would do 
> just as well to get their own block from ARIN.  Now that 
> everyone has dis-contiguous IP blocks (even when connected to 
> the same provider), the routing tables increase dramatically 
> in size (no ability to aggregate announcements), every change 
> that occurs is no longer isolated to the providers backbone - 
> but propagates throughout the Internet (so let's all change 
> routing tables constantly).
>         So I'm not really on board with a flat IP cost...  
> There needs to be some incentive to aggregate, and the best 
> incentive is usually economic.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Barry Dykes
> Vice President Engineering/Operations
> ViaWest, Inc.
> Office: 303.407.4708
> Fax: 303.885.4999
> www.viawest.net
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chad Kissinger
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:29 AM
> To: Kirk Ismay; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementon Legacy 
> assignments?(fwd)
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem to me that the fee should be based on a per-IP number
> basis.  Why should some company that has many, many times my 
> allocation
> pay less than twice as much as I do per year?
> 
> I think the argument that what you are really paying for is 
> registration
> service is specious.... what am I paying for in a year in 
> which I don't
> require any registration services?  I've been in the ISP business now
> for 14 years and I think I've gone through approximately 5 allocations
> in that time... most years I don't need any registration 
> service at all.
> 
> 
> Why, during those years when I don't need more IP space, is my fee
> higher than someone else who actually did go through a registration
> process in that year... just because my existing blocks are bigger?
> 
> It would seem that existing policy is that you do pay on a 
> per-IP basis
> up to a certain point (/14 in IPv4), and then it's all you can eat.
> 
> I think the policy should be:
> 
> The Yearly cost of maintaining an allocation should equal Arin's total
> annual costs divided by the total number of IP numbers allocated times
> the total number of IPs being used by the member.
> 
> Right now, as your allocations get larger, you have less and 
> less of an
> incentive to worry about whether or not you are wasting IP 
> space.  A per
> IP number fee policy would align the community's interests (i.e.
> conservation of IP space) with the financial interests of the members
> using the space.  Right now IP space is effectively a "commons" and we
> are seeing the "tragedy of the commons".
> 
> 
> Onramp Access
> chad kissinger  |  president  |  onramp access, inc.
> p: 512.322.9200  |  f: 512.476.2878  |  www.onr.com
> your internet operations  |  built  |  deployed  |  managed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kirk Ismay
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementon Legacy
> assignments?(fwd)
> 
> 
> >
> > I'd prefer that the communities' energies (and ARIN's) go 
> to promoting
> 
> > IPv6 traction rather than scraping the bottom of the IPv4 barrel,
> > especially when we don't _really_ know what's down there.
> >
> >
> I agree with focusing on the future.
> 
> --
> 
> Sincerely,
> Kirk Ismay
> System Administrator
> 
> --
> Net Idea
> 201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6
> P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512
> 
> Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the
> ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Barry,

I am sorry. I must have missed the fact that IP resources are for ISP only.
That is why vehicle license plates, gasoline tax, and roadways are for
truckers only.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From mike at mathbox.com  Fri Oct  5 15:46:43 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:46:43 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml]
	Counselstatement	onLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <470690B2.8040506@shout.net>
Message-ID: <200710051546539.SM03196@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Berger
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:30 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] 
> Counselstatement onLegacyassignments?(fwd)
> 
> My newspaper subscription (and a few magazines) are on an 
> annual basis.  
> Some of
> the local ISP's also offer billing on an annual basis.  My homeowners 
> and auto insurance
> both have annual payment options (and it wasn't an option for my 
> business insurance,
> it was mandatory).  Automobile registration fees are on an annual 
> basis.  I pay my
> alarm monitoring service annually.
> 
> So now you know there are lots of businesses that bill annually.
> 
> For the people who don't think billing monthly adds much to 
> the cost of 
> business,
> I suspect you've never been in a business where you have to bill a 
> significant
> number of clients.  Imagine having to deal with 12 times the 
> paperwork,
> 12 times the costs of dealing with late payments, and 12 
> times the bank 
> processing
> fees.
> 
> Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
> >>
> >> The annual is not killing me.. Getting a loan would be stupid for  
> >> such an amount.. What I am getting at is I run my business 
> on 30 day  
> >> payables... I know of no other service that requires an annual,  
> >> upfront payment for services.  Imagine if I had to pay for 
> my fiber  
> >> annually... OUCH!!!
> >>     

Actually, Michael Thomas did not write that...

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From chad at onr.com  Fri Oct  5 15:55:24 2007
From: chad at onr.com (Chad Kissinger)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:55:24 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counselstatementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
References: <47067037.2000009@netidea.com><6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F034CEC16@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
	<D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001267F11@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F02FD0C3C@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>

 
I'm fine with us all paying for ARIN and it remaining in its current form.  I understand that WHOIS and SWIP and all the rest of the services require financing.  I also understand that the bigger an IP block a member uses, the more of a "load" the member is going to put on all these services.  My point is this:  In a year in which no requests for allocations occur, it takes twice as much effort to handle a member with a /19 than it does a similar member with a /20.... therefore the first member should pay exactly twice as much.  I don't understand there being any other justification for treating the two otherwise in a year where there are no actual new allocations.  All those other services are fairly automated and the impact a member has on them is directly proportional to the size of his total allocation.  I don't feel militant about this.... I don't think the current fees are outrageous... I just think they're unfair.  
 

________________________________

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net on behalf of michael.dillon at bt.com
Sent: Fri 10/5/2007 1:49 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counselstatementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)



> I think the argument that what you are really paying for is
> registration service is specious....

It's not specious. ARIN is a non-profit corporation under Virginia law.
It has a charter, it has bylaws, it has members and it has a Board of
Trustees. The members (like you and me) elected the Trustees and they
decided what the fees are paying for. Twice a year they tell us all
about it with financial reports at the ARIN meetings. We can see the
revenue, the expenses, the savings account to cover emergencies. We can
see how the fees are broken down and that they are calculated as largely
paying for registration services.

> what am I paying for in
> a year in which I don't require any registration services? 

Clearly you are not paying for IP addresses. You are supporting the
operation of a non-profit membership organization so that things like
the whois directory and in-addr.arpa service keeps running. You are also
supporting a stewardship structure for managing IP addresses rather than
letting it be run by a government bureaucracy or some pirate
capitalists.

> Why, during those years when I don't need more IP space, is
> my fee higher than someone else who actually did go through a
> registration process in that year... just because my existing
> blocks are bigger?

Because you screwed up when you applied for your allocation and didn't
ask for just 6 months worth like you should have. Fortunately, ARIN does
not actively punish you for this. You just end up paying the same fees
that you would have if you had come back for more addresses twice per
year.

> It would seem that existing policy is that you do pay on a
> per-IP basis up to a certain point (/14 in IPv4), and then
> it's all you can eat. 
>
> I think the policy should be:

The fee structure is not a matter of ARIN policy. It is decided by the
Board of Trustees. Of course they can and do consult members on this.
The newly announced fee structure incorporates a couple of suggestions
that I made to a BOT member a while back.

> The Yearly cost of maintaining an allocation should equal
> Arin's total annual costs divided by the total number of IP
> numbers allocated times the total number of IPs being used by
> the member. 

Because the legal status of IP addresses has not yet been decided in the
courts, the BOT is quite wisely stearing clear of fees which might imply
that you are paying rent per IP address.

> Right now, as your allocations get larger, you have less and
> less of an incentive to worry about whether or not you are
> wasting IP space.

Fees are not allowed to be an instrument of ARIN policy. If you want to
give people incentives, they have to be done without fees. You could
propose some form of regular audits of past allocations. You could
specify best-practices that members must adhere to. Like with phone
numbers, you could require all members to file monthly reports of
utilization with projected runout dates. But you can't touch fees.

And no matter what you suggest, it will never happen unless a majority
of members agree, and a substantial majority of the Advisory Council
aggrees, and ARIN Counsel agrees that it is legal and within ARIN's
Power, and the Board of Trustees agrees. It is rarely possible to sell a
well-crafted proposal. Most of the time, you need to compromise a lot,
water things down, and settle for just making things a bit better.

--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071005/b6ea01d6/attachment.html>

From bdykes at viawest.net  Fri Oct  5 16:15:52 2007
From: bdykes at viawest.net (Barry Dykes)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:15:52 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:
	[ppml]Counsel	statementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051531658.SM02808@mikesplace>
References: <0FCF1DAC85A3A5489C2D5183E2C4B2E34C669716@mbx01.citservers.local>
	<200710051531658.SM02808@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <0FCF1DAC85A3A5489C2D5183E2C4B2E34C669984@mbx01.citservers.local>

Oh, don't misunderstand me.  I'm impressed that you purchase your fuel directly from the refinery rather than having to deal with some type of scalable distribution model.  Of course if there were 10 lane highways to those refineries, I guess we could all purchase fuel directly near the source.  They would of course have to put in much smaller fill stations to deal with all of those minivans as well as more personnel to keep all that new machinery running.  However, that is not really a scalable model.
        So while you use gasoline like the rest of us - the volume of the transaction dictates the price and the location that you can access it.  I kind of assumed that Internet Protocol (IP) address were for - well; use on the Internet.  So having an Internet Service Provider able to allocate the smaller blocks would kind of be like expecting to stop at a service station rather than a refinery for fuel.  Oh - then they could aggregate the IP blocks so that every little incident that occurs is not propagated throughout everyone's backbone.  And that (aggregation) is good for everyone.

Thanks,


Barry Dykes
Vice President Engineering/Operations
ViaWest, Inc.
Office: 303.407.4708
Fax: 303.885.4999
www.viawest.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas - Mathbox [mailto:mike at mathbox.com]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:32 PM
To: Barry Dykes; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: RE: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counsel statementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)


Barry,

I am sorry. I must have missed the fact that IP resources are for ISP only.
That is why vehicle license plates, gasoline tax, and roadways are for
truckers only.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)




From dean at av8.net  Fri Oct  5 16:27:59 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051626000.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:
>  
>    Everyone who received address space received it under the
>    direction of the IANA (and indirectly, the US government)
>    prior to their respective RIR being formed.  The absence of
>    a formal contract for such assignments means that there
>    are many possible interpretations as to the particular rights
>    and obligations of the parties.

Yes, a court determines implied contract terms, sometimes by looking at
previous performance of a long period of time. Of course, there is no
dispute that a contract exists, just a dispute about the terms of the
contract.  ARIN is not giving out any free services to people without a
contract.

>    In any case, both legacy holders and ARIN appear to have
>    obligations to the community.  ARIN will certainly do as the
>    community directs, but one wonders if the legacy community
>    would like us all to forget their community obligations and
>    simply pretend that their assignments were done in a total
>    contractual and community obligation vacuum...

And just what, exactly, is ARIN spending on maintaining Legacy records?

ARIN already has such a huge surplus that it strains non-profit status
to have such profit: ARIN can now operate for something like 7 years
with no further income.  If the crowd that says IPv4 will end in 3 years
is right, we should be expecting __payments__ from ARIN, instead of
fees.  It seems a bit disingenuous to argue that ARIN needs to reduce
costs by doing something to Legacy holders.

As space runs out, Legacy holders (and non-legacy holders, too) will
find ways to utilize their space more effectively. Market forces will
take care of that.  There is no credible argument that they aren't
utilizing that space pretty well now.  Its that simple. The argument
that somehow legacy holders aren't meeting their obligations to the
community is entirely groundless, baseless, offensive nonsense. The
legacy holders made this network; if it weren't for the legacy's you'd
be running something from ISO, the ITU, SNA, Decnet, Novell, etc.  
There would certainly be commercial networks, but it wouldn't be this
network.

If it weren't for companies like OSF, Nearnet wouldn't have had a backup
link to DEC for its flaky Microwave, and John Curran wouldn't be a
'hero'.  If it weren't for the OSF, none of you would be running
FreeBSD, or OpenBSD; OSF funded the completion of the free BSD 4.4
source, on which all these are based. There's a lot more, and that's
just my little corner. Other Legacy's did much more.  Personally, I'm
getting kind of tired of people bashing legacy's, especially those
people who benefited so handsomely from the quiet, unpaid help that
Legacies gave them.

ARIN has no legal or moral authority to take Legacy space and give it to
someone else, merely because those new people are better connected with
ARIN staff.

Basically, all that is going on is a fabricated pretension of anarchy
and a defamation of Legacy holders in order to justify a theft of
government assigned rights from legacy holders.

However, the question that started this particular thread still hasn't
been answered:  Has ARIN made a definitive statement on the legal rights
of Legacys?  Sprunk says yes. I say no.  ARIN?

                --Dean



-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   






From dean at av8.net  Fri Oct  5 16:29:31 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:29:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051356.l95DuBJc011166@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051628320.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Thomas Leonard wrote:

> I happen to agree with the ARIN attorney.  

The point is that ARIN attorney hasn't said anything definitive.

		--Dean

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?(fwd)
> 
> Holy context batman, that is quite a bit different than your statement.
> 
> You also cut off the part where he says he hasn't thought about it much,
> and the part where he notes 'the government gave away something without
> any strings attached'.  That is an agreement with the government. So Mr.  
> Ryan appears to have mis-spoken about some lack of agreement between the
> government and legacy holders.
> 
> And you left off the part about:
> 
> "I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for 
> authority to have the government obtain back that which the government 
> gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've 
> started to play with different theories here."
> 
> So the answer is that the ARIN Lawyer doesn't know.  ARIN hasn't offered
> any definitive opinion as you assert. 
> 
> Please tell the IETF you were wrong.
> 
>                 --Dean
> 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> > Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.com>
> > > "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
> > > ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
> > > legacy assignments"
> > >
> > > Where is this counsel statement?
> > 
> > http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
> > 
> > "MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like 
> > here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN 
> > is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit 
> > trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free 
> > services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services 
> > to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly 
> > permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
> > 
> > S
> > 
> > Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> > CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> > K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Oct  5 17:14:27 2007
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:14:27 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051626000.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051626000.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <p0624080ac32c53b3e3b9@[192.168.3.65]>

At 4:27 PM -0400 10/5/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>...
>It seems a bit disingenuous to argue that ARIN needs to reduce
>costs by doing something to Legacy holders.

ARIN doesn't *need* to do anything with respect to changing
services or fees for legacy holders; it's a topic that comes up
from time to time and we try to make sure the discussion is
informed when it occurs.   Randy Bush rightfully pointed out
that when ARIN was founded, there was a clear expectation
that it would provide some form of maintenance services to
the legacy space holders.  My only reason for getting involved
is to point out that circumstances change, and the Internet
community can indeed revisit some of the assumptions of the
past, including what services and cost recovery are appropriate
for legacy holders.

As you've noted, ARIN has a very health reserve.  We've
lowered fees (and waived IPv6 fees altogether), but we are
still financially ahead.  I welcome any and all suggestions
at the members meeting regarding how best to proceed,
but would also note that we also need to plan how to
transition over the next decade to a scenario where there
may not be as frequent contact will the members due to
lack of new IPv4 requests, and yet the databases and
services will still need to be maintained.

>If it weren't for companies like OSF, Nearnet wouldn't have had a backup
>link to DEC for its flaky Microwave, and John Curran wouldn't be a
>'hero'.

No hero... just an elected Internet dude.  Positions open
up every year; feel free to join in at any time.

>However, the question that started this particular thread still hasn't
>been answered:  Has ARIN made a definitive statement on the legal rights
>of Legacys?  Sprunk says yes. I say no.  ARIN?

If the members direct ARIN to change the services or fees to
"legacy" address holders in the region, ARIN will endeavor to do. 
As Randy points out, this could run against the expectations of
the Internet community at large from the time of ARIN's start,
so obviously any changes would need to be well thought out,
and need to have enjoyed ample public discussion.

/John


From chad at onr.com  Fri Oct  5 18:06:54 2007
From: chad at onr.com (Chad Kissinger)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:06:54 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counselstatementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051717130.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F02FD0C40@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>

 
We're not talking about buying real estate.  We're talking about the allocation of a natural resource, i.e. namespace.  I am not an ARIN or IP allocation expert, but I've been getting IP numbers from ARIN for a long time and I seem to be in the second highest tier of fee level.  I pay the fee just under what AT&T pays, Sprint pays, etc. and probably will eventually pay the same fee.  It would seem that ARIN should try to incur only the barest expenses in the performance of its mission while fairly allocating the costs to the members according to their impact on the expenses of ARIN.  As far as I can tell, my small regional company pays $9,000 per year and AT&T pays $18,000 per year.  Am I missing something?  Shouldn't the largest communications company in the US pay more than twice as much as my company?  
 
 

 
________________________________

From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com]
Sent: Fri 10/5/2007 4:25 PM
To: Chad Kissinger
Cc: michael.dillon at bt.com; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counselstatementon Legacy assignments?(fwd)



On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Chad Kissinger wrote:


> My point is this:  In a year in which no
> requests for allocations occur, it takes twice as much effort to
> handle a member with a /19 than it does a similar member with a
> /20....

Just how is that? Many/most? legacy's don't do swip. [I'd advise against
swip, because it exposes your customer database to your competitors.]


> I just think they're unfair.

Its unfair that the guy who buys a house in the first phase of a new
housing development pays less than the guy who buys the exact same house
in phase 2.  Or is it? The guy who buys in phase one takes a bigger
risk: The risk that the housing development won't be finished, or won't
be attractive, and his unseen house won't be as nice as the brochure
says it will be.

The folks who buy in phase 2, can see the houses are nice, and that the
development is attractive, and that there is value in what they are
getting.

There is no unfairness benefiting legacy's. We legacy's also took
greater risks by getting in early.  We put in more effort.  If it
weren't for our effort, you wouldn't be making money now off the
internet.

You really should be putting a profit-sharing check in the mail each
month to the legacy's. That would be fair.  Paypal is fine. Oh wait,
that uses the internet, too. How ironic.

                --Dean


--
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000  




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071005/6d6a6349/attachment.html>

From dean at av8.net  Fri Oct  5 18:08:18 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <p0624080ac32c53b3e3b9@[192.168.3.65]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051807280.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:
> 
> >However, the question that started this particular thread still hasn't
> >been answered:  Has ARIN made a definitive statement on the legal rights
> >of Legacys?  Sprunk says yes. I say no.  ARIN?
> 
> If the members direct ARIN to change the services or fees to
> "legacy" address holders in the region, ARIN will endeavor to do. 
> As Randy points out, this could run against the expectations of
> the Internet community at large from the time of ARIN's start,
> so obviously any changes would need to be well thought out,
> and need to have enjoyed ample public discussion.

So, what's the story about that statement?

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From aaron at wholesaleinternet.com  Fri Oct  5 18:12:51 2007
From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.com (Aaron Wendel)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:12:51 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counselstatementon	Legacy	assignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F02FD0C40@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051717130.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
	<6FE708CF9877BB4E99CC46ABC13D150F02FD0C40@exchange2003.staff.onr.com>
Message-ID: <01ee01c8079c$dec675e0$9c5361a0$@com>

Actually I believe AT&T's space is legacy and so they pay nothing at all. J

 

Aaron

 

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Chad Kissinger
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 5:07 PM
To: Dean Anderson
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml]Counselstatementon Legacy
assignments?(fwd)

 

 

We're not talking about buying real estate.  We're talking about the
allocation of a natural resource, i.e. namespace.  I am not an ARIN or IP
allocation expert, but I've been getting IP numbers from ARIN for a long
time and I seem to be in the second highest tier of fee level.  I pay the
fee just under what AT&T pays, Sprint pays, etc. and probably will
eventually pay the same fee.  It would seem that ARIN should try to incur
only the barest expenses in the performance of its mission while fairly
allocating the costs to the members according to their impact on the
expenses of ARIN.  As far as I can tell, my small regional company pays
$9,000 per year and AT&T pays $18,000 per year.  Am I missing something?
Shouldn't the largest communications company in the US pay more than twice
as much as my company?  

 

 


 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071005/f95aab62/attachment.html>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Oct  5 19:33:15 2007
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 19:33:15 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051807280.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051807280.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <p0624080ec32c75f0ea2b@[192.168.3.65]>

At 6:08 PM -0400 10/5/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > If the members direct ARIN to change the services or fees to
>> "legacy" address holders in the region, ARIN will endeavor to do.
>> As Randy points out, this could run against the expectations of
>> the Internet community at large from the time of ARIN's start,
>> so obviously any changes would need to be well thought out,
>> and need to have enjoyed ample public discussion.
>
>So, what's the story about that statement?

I don't think there's a "story", but let me rephrase and see if
it helps: the right of legacy space holders to receive free ARIN
services is not, per se, a legal issue, as ARIN has no obligation
arisen from its incorporation or organization that compels it
to provide free services to the legacy community. 

Whether there's a legal obligation or not, there can easily be a
social obligation if the community feels that such is warranted.
Some people feel that such an obligation exists today, at least
as far as ARIN provide services to the legacy space holders (but
perhaps not reciprocated as far as the legacy holders abiding by
policy in the region). 

The Internet community is a large place, and extends beyond
the ARIN members, and the members of all the RIR's per se...
If the ARIN community should recommend policy which affects
legacy holders, ARIN will do its best to implement such policy,
but it's crucial to recognize that these legacy holders are not
generally aware of the discussion going on at ARIN, and hence
the widest possible public discussion is highly recommended.

Did that address your question, or did I miss it altogether?

/John


From owen at delong.com  Fri Oct  5 20:39:13 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:39:13 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200710051506352.SM01552@mikesplace>
References: <200710051506352.SM01552@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <86446206-7267-4752-8599-91A98FCF28A8@delong.com>

>
> Owen,
>
> For several reasons, I honestly do not believe that your cost  
> allocation is
> accurate.
>
> 1. In another message unrelated to this one, you point out to  
> Jeremy that
> someone returning for another allocation does not pay separately  
> for each
> allocation.
>
Correct.  My cost allocation was based on the ASSIGNMENT fees, not
the Allocation fees.  Allocation fees are different.  Allocation fees  
are
not actually about IP addresses at all, except that the number of IP
addresses is used as a rough approximation for ARIN to determine
other related costs to providing membership services. I accept my
error and apologize for the confusion.

Allocation fees are actually SUBSCRIBER MEMBERSHIP DUES
for membership in the organization as a SUBSCRIBER MEMBER
and are based on the size of your subscription.  Beyond a certain
size subscriber, your fees do not increase because there is a
tendency for such large subscribers to have smaller increases in
costs with ARIN as their size increases.

The allocations between /24 and /16 in size tend to incrementally
increase the number of ARIN changes to RDNS and the number of
SWIP changes which need to be registered.  Assignments larger than
a /16 begin to have smaller incremental cost increases at ARIN because
the number of malformed SWIP requests submitted tends to go down,
the number of RDNS changes that need to be made by ARIN tend
to go down (ARIN points entire /16s and the ISP delegates the
multiple /24s), etc.


> 2. In the second and subsequent years of an allocation, one still  
> pays the
> entire fee. If your argument held water, the second and subsequent  
> year fees
> would be reduced by the application processing cost and would  
> reflect only
> the maintenance cost.
>
Right.  For that fee, you have covered the costs for two people's  
registration
fees for the semi-annual membership meetings, you have paid for the
operations of RDNS and WHOIS, the SWIP processing system, operations
of the PPML, and other mailing lists, your continued use of resources
at the Registration Services Help desk, should you need them, and
several other ancillary benefits of membership in the organization,
as well as a fee related to the proportion of space you need.

> 3. Comparing the time to review an intial /24, /23, /22, /21  
> allocation to a
> /14 or larger allocation as taking longer due to the applicant being
> unfamiliar with the process is questionable. The allocation of a  
> larger
> block should actually be scrutinized more heavily, because it  
> removes more
> resources from the available pool.
>
You are assuming that staff time is linear with level of scrutiny.   
That simply
isn't true.  I happen to know that staff is very thorough in their  
scrutiny of
each and every request.  However, a well documented request with the
appropriate data and supporting information which meets policy can be
very thoroughly scrutinized very quickly.  OTOH, a malformed request
which takes 15 tries back and forth before the applicant actually gets
all the right data together can take much longer and occupy many more
staff hours.  Additionally, requests which are submitted, then, modified
several times are subjected to additional scrutiny to prevent fraud.
This is reasonable.

The reason that, on average, larger requests take less staff time is  
because,
on average, larger requests are submitted by people who do this for a
living and know what documentation is required and can submit a
correct (or closer to correct) request with appropriate supporting  
documentation
on the first try.

> 4. If in fact the total cost is based on application costs and  
> maintenance
> costs, the fees would reflect that.
>
There are other factors (as outlined above) which go into the SUBSCRIBER
MEMBERSHIP DUES pricing.  However, I still think that it is a relatively
fair system and that you are not being unfairly charged.

> 5. I just paid my second annual fee. The cost was the same as last  
> year. I
> did not make any applications this year.
>
Right.  However, here's something to consider.  You didn't have any  
addresses
revoked even though your "6 month supply" lasted you well over 6 months.
You still haven't been actively penalized by ARIN for failing to meet  
the
policies in applying only for what you need for 6 months.

> 6. The fees are based on the total size of all allocations. You  
> have said
> so.
>
The fees are charged on the total size of the allocations because  
that is a
simplified yard stick which allows a fee structure that is easier to  
understand,
communicate, implement, and maintain.  There is a difference between the
way the fees are computed and the actual cost-basis of the fees which
is what I meant by what they are based on.  This abstraction is  
useful for
a number of reasons, but, it does mean that if you are an exception, you
may pay a bit less or a bit more than someone who is closer to the norm.


Owen



From david.picard at sogetel.com  Fri Oct  5 22:20:52 2007
From: david.picard at sogetel.com (David Picard)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 22:20:52 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement
	onLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0710050839570.14939@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEEEEGEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>

You have to consider that sometimes large operators have very large blocs
since a while and they have not done any requests for a while.

For example when you have 12 B Classes for 500k customers you have a lot of
IP addresses to waste...
Considering that you having no to very low fee you have a financial and
competitive advantage.

A competitor will not be able to justify 2 IPs adresses per customer and
will have to pay for larger allocations if he succeed to justify his
request.

So if everyone pay the same price,  it will be fair for eveyone and it will
discourage wasting of ip addresses.



David Picard
---------------------------------------------
Administrateur reseau / Network administrator
Internet Galilee
www.sogetel.net

david.picard at sogetel.com
1-866-764-3835 x1271
1-819-293-1271



"CONFIDENTIALITE  Ce document transmis par courrier electronique est destine
uniquement a la personne ou a l'entite a qui il est adresse et peut contenir
 des renseignements confidentiels.  La confidentialite demeure malgre
l'envoi de ce document a la mauvaise adresse electronique.  Si vous n'etes
pas le destinataire vise ou la personne chargee de remettre ce document a
son destinataire, veuillez nous en informer sans delai et detruire ce
document.  Toute distribution, reproduction ou autre utilisation de ce
document est interdite sans notre consentement."


-----Message d'origine-----
De : arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]De la part de Bill Woodcock
Envoye : 5 octobre 2007 11:44
A : David Picard
Cc : arin-discuss at arin.net
Objet : Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement
onLegacyassignments?(fwd)


      On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, David Picard wrote:
    > Same thing for me...
    > Large cables operators in Quebec have a lot of Class B and they offer
as may
    > ip as customers wants...
    > I cannot do this...

I suspect this is a misimpression, if an understandable one...  If the
cable operators are large, they certainly have more customers than would
be accommodated by a couple of actual legacy Class B networks.  That means
that they're coming back to ARIN periodically to get more space.  If
they're coming back for more space, they have to justify their current
sub-allocations just as you do, and so they're operating under exactly the
rules you do.  How many addresses a customer _wants_ is irrelevant. Both
you and the cable operator have the same capacity to give them as many as
they _need_.

                                -Bill

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.




From mike at mathbox.com  Sat Oct  6 03:43:04 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 03:43:04 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on
	Legacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <86446206-7267-4752-8599-91A98FCF28A8@delong.com>
Message-ID: <200710060343688.SM02832@mikesplace>

Owen,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:39 PM
> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel 
> statement on Legacyassignments?(fwd)
> 
> >
> > Owen,
> >
> > For several reasons, I honestly do not believe that your cost  
> > allocation is
> > accurate.
> >
> > 1. In another message unrelated to this one, you point out to  
> > Jeremy that
> > someone returning for another allocation does not pay separately  
> > for each
> > allocation.
> >
> Correct.  My cost allocation was based on the ASSIGNMENT fees, not
> the Allocation fees.  Allocation fees are different.  
> Allocation fees  
> are
> not actually about IP addresses at all, except that the number of IP
> addresses is used as a rough approximation for ARIN to determine
> other related costs to providing membership services. I accept my
> error and apologize for the confusion.

No problem. Please accept my apologies in advance for all of the errors and
lame arguments that I advance.

> Allocation fees are actually SUBSCRIBER MEMBERSHIP DUES
> for membership in the organization as a SUBSCRIBER MEMBER
> and are based on the size of your subscription.  Beyond a certain
> size subscriber, your fees do not increase because there is a
> tendency for such large subscribers to have smaller increases in
> costs with ARIN as their size increases.

Hopefully, your argument above is the cost to ARIN to process and maintain
the allocation. Without a working experience with subscribers, I have no
facts to leverage, but would tend to agree that overall, larger subscribers
are probably more efficent subscribers. If in fact, smaller subscribers are
so inept as to cause that much effort to process an allocation, then perhaps
ARIN should have a per allocation fee. I do have difficulty swallowing that
one though. Realistically, if ARIN employees are overworked processing those
inefficent subscriber allocations, I think ARIN has the monetary resources
to hire additional help.

However, ARIN's cost to process and maintain the alllocation is not the only
consideration. The goal of all allocations is the IP address. That is so
significant, that ARIN measures SUBSCRIBER MEMBERSHIP DUES on the size the
allocation. By that measure, the pricing 

> The allocations between /24 and /16 in size tend to incrementally
> increase the number of ARIN changes to RDNS and the number of
> SWIP changes which need to be registered.  Assignments larger than

With the current requirements to get an initial allocation, that is a direct
result of ARIN allocation policy. This is the amount for which you qualify.
When you have used that come back again. That is not the fault of the
subscriber. That is ARIN policy.

> a /16 begin to have smaller incremental cost increases at ARIN because
> the number of malformed SWIP requests submitted tends to go down,
> the number of RDNS changes that need to be made by ARIN tend
> to go down (ARIN points entire /16s and the ISP delegates the
> multiple /24s), etc.

So, you see smaller subscribers as inept because they haven't learned the
ropes yet? Therefore, ARIN should increase relative cost of SUBSCRIBER
MEMBERSHIP DUES and create a barrier to entry rather than fostering and
encouraging new members?

> 
> 
> > 2. In the second and subsequent years of an allocation, one still  
> > pays the
> > entire fee. If your argument held water, the second and subsequent  
> > year fees
> > would be reduced by the application processing cost and would  
> > reflect only
> > the maintenance cost.
> >
> Right.  For that fee, you have covered the costs for two people's  
> registration
> fees for the semi-annual membership meetings, you have paid for the
> operations of RDNS and WHOIS, the SWIP processing system, operations
> of the PPML, and other mailing lists, your continued use of resources
> at the Registration Services Help desk, should you need them, and
> several other ancillary benefits of membership in the organization,
> as well as a fee related to the proportion of space you need.


> 
> > 3. Comparing the time to review an intial /24, /23, /22, /21  
> > allocation to a
> > /14 or larger allocation as taking longer due to the applicant being
> > unfamiliar with the process is questionable. The allocation of a  
> > larger
> > block should actually be scrutinized more heavily, because it  
> > removes more
> > resources from the available pool.
> >
> You are assuming that staff time is linear with level of scrutiny.   
> That simply
> isn't true.  I happen to know that staff is very thorough in their  
> scrutiny of
> each and every request.  However, a well documented request with the
> appropriate data and supporting information which meets policy can be
> very thoroughly scrutinized very quickly.  OTOH, a malformed request

And as you have indicated, those large subscribers do know how to document
and substantiate those requests.

> which takes 15 tries back and forth before the applicant actually gets
> all the right data together can take much longer and occupy many more
> staff hours.  Additionally, requests which are submitted, 
> then, modified
> several times are subjected to additional scrutiny to prevent fraud.
> This is reasonable.

I neither assumed nor suggested that staff time was linear. I may not have
clearly articulated my objection. I was reponding to a comparison of
processing effort for an initial small allocation by an ignorant (with out
knowledge) applicant to an apt applicant of a larger allocation. I was
suggesting that the impact on the resource pool of processing and even
reprocessing up to 15 times, that small _initial_ allocation was less
dramatic than processing those well documented and substantiated large
subscriber requests.

> 
> The reason that, on average, larger requests take less staff time is  
> because,
> on average, larger requests are submitted by people who do this for a
> living and know what documentation is required and can submit a
> correct (or closer to correct) request with appropriate supporting  
> documentation
> on the first try.
> 
> > 4. If in fact the total cost is based on application costs and  
> > maintenance
> > costs, the fees would reflect that.
> >
> There are other factors (as outlined above) which go into the 
> SUBSCRIBER
> MEMBERSHIP DUES pricing.  However, I still think that it is a 
> relatively
> fair system and that you are not being unfairly charged.

Hmmm.

> 
> > 5. I just paid my second annual fee. The cost was the same as last  
> > year. I
> > did not make any applications this year.
> >
> Right.  However, here's something to consider.  You didn't have any  
> addresses
> revoked even though your "6 month supply" lasted you well 
> over 6 months.
> You still haven't been actively penalized by ARIN for failing 
> to meet  
> the
> policies in applying only for what you need for 6 months.

Right out of the gate, you assume so much. In fact, you assume everything.
You have with absolutely no facts. You assume, simply because I did not
apply for another allocation, that I have violated a "6 month supply" rule.
Apparently, no other outcome is possible. How about the simplist one? Got
that allocation; used it up; don't need anymore just yet. Lets try another
one. Multi-homed. Demonstrated efficent usage of a /23. Need 64 more IP
right now. Get an initial allocation of a /22. Took awhile to demonstrate
efficient usage of a /23. Needed more, but whoooohooo, its going to take
awhile to use up the rest of that allocation. Those people getting small
initial allocations are so lucky that ARIN does not penalize them for lack
of efficient usage aren't they?

> 
> > 6. The fees are based on the total size of all allocations. You  
> > have said
> > so.
> >
> The fees are charged on the total size of the allocations because  
> that is a
> simplified yard stick which allows a fee structure that is easier to  
> understand,
> communicate, implement, and maintain.  There is a difference 
> between the
> way the fees are computed and the actual cost-basis of the fees which
> is what I meant by what they are based on.  This abstraction is  
> useful for
> a number of reasons, but, it does mean that if you are an 
> exception, you
> may pay a bit less or a bit more than someone who is closer 
> to the norm.
> 
> 
> Owen

One of the resources that ARIN manages and the point of this discussion is
the IP address. ARIN measures SUBSCRIBER MEMBERSHIP DUES by the IP address.
For those required to pay SUBSCRIBER MEMBERSHIP DUES to get IP resources,
the prices range from a /22 (a valid ARIN allocation unit) at a cost of
$1.22 per IP address to a /13 at $.035 per IP address. And by the way, if
you are large enough to warrant a /13 and need another /13. that one is
free.

ARIN IP address costs are not fair or equitable. ARIN, the non-profit and
resource steward, gains nothing by providing resources at multi-tiered
pricing levels, but does establish artificial barriers and promotes an
anti-competitive environment. So far, none of your arguments have convinced
me to think otherwise.

Although I am hoping it is not true, you have almost convinced me that you
believe small, initial, allocation subscribers are ignorant, inept, and a
troublesome bother to ARIN.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Sat Oct  6 19:14:15 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 19:14:15 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <200710051135239.SM00820@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4073855C0@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

I am delighted to see a substantive fee discussion on ARIN-discuss!

Let me try to explain the current system, without implying that
it's the only system possible.

The concept supporting the current fee structure is that ARIN
should try to recover its costs.  The cost to ARIN for issuing
address space is not linear; while it takes more time to 
review an application for a /16 than a /22, it doesn't take
32 times as long, and the demand on servers and finance and
meetings and so forth is similarly larger-but-non-linear.  So
for simplicity's sake a few size categories were defined, 
with fees at levels that seemed about right for each size,
without breaking anyone.

When setting fees for IPv6, we (the Finance Committee 
recommended to the Board) chose to follow a well-known and
generally-supported fee structure.  Look at the recent updates 
at http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html
Ignore waivers for the moment.  Current policies (see the
NRPM at http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html) essentially
allow the following kinds of allocations or assignments:
	* End-user assignment from upstream provider (null)
	* End-user assignment from ARIN (/48 = $1,250 + $100/yr)
	* LIR standard allocation from ARIN (/32 = $2,250/yr)
	* Larger LIR allocations from ARIN (/31 and larger)

There are some exceptions and corner cases, but those are
the general cases.  LIRs pay an annual renewal because they
generate more work on an ongoing basis.  End-users only pay
a maintenance fee because in general, they require little
additional support, only enough to make sure there's still
somebody there.

Earlier this year, the Finance Committee reviewed about
15 proposals for fee structures (and waivers).  We agreed 
that we needed to continue working on this, but we
recommended the IPv6 declining waiver beginning in January
so we'd have a well-understood structure and waiver in
place while work continued.

So, as I often do, I'm soliciting suggestions for ARIN's
fee structure.  I suggest the following voluntary 
constraints:

* Define "fair" in a way that's obvious to the other guy
* Define your goal.  Either:
	* Work toward ARIN's current budget, 
	* or suggest specific budget changes,
	* or suggest a different goal
	http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
* Emphasize IPv6 over IPv4.  Current projections suggest 
that the initial fee for IPv4 allocations and assignments 
will be moot very soon.
* Don't use analogies.  I have not found them particularly 
enlightening in the past six months.
* Change the subject line if you're coming up with a new
suggestion.

These are only suggestions, and completely voluntary--you
can still post whatever you like on the topic.

Your Treasurer,

Lee Howard


From tom at lanline.com  Sat Oct  6 19:50:31 2007
From: tom at lanline.com (Thomas Leonard)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 19:50:31 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementonLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEEEEGEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>
Message-ID: <200710062350.l96NoWBb008794@txslsmtp2.vzwmail.net>

Exactly.

I personally know of companies that would surrender thousands of class C address space, if they paid what I paid for IP space.

IP pricing is not fair and everyone knows it's not fair, but change takes courage and I don't think ARIN management has that needed
courage. 

Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500 
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Picard
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:21 PM
To: Bill Woodcock
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementonLegacyassignments?(fwd)

You have to consider that sometimes large operators have very large blocs
since a while and they have not done any requests for a while.

For example when you have 12 B Classes for 500k customers you have a lot of
IP addresses to waste...
Considering that you having no to very low fee you have a financial and
competitive advantage.

A competitor will not be able to justify 2 IPs adresses per customer and
will have to pay for larger allocations if he succeed to justify his
request.

So if everyone pay the same price,  it will be fair for eveyone and it will
discourage wasting of ip addresses.



David Picard
---------------------------------------------
Administrateur reseau / Network administrator
Internet Galilee
www.sogetel.net

david.picard at sogetel.com
1-866-764-3835 x1271
1-819-293-1271



"CONFIDENTIALITE  Ce document transmis par courrier electronique est destine
uniquement a la personne ou a l'entite a qui il est adresse et peut contenir
 des renseignements confidentiels.  La confidentialite demeure malgre
l'envoi de ce document a la mauvaise adresse electronique.  Si vous n'etes
pas le destinataire vise ou la personne chargee de remettre ce document a
son destinataire, veuillez nous en informer sans delai et detruire ce
document.  Toute distribution, reproduction ou autre utilisation de ce
document est interdite sans notre consentement."


-----Message d'origine-----
De : arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]De la part de Bill Woodcock
Envoye : 5 octobre 2007 11:44
A : David Picard
Cc : arin-discuss at arin.net
Objet : Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement
onLegacyassignments?(fwd)


      On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, David Picard wrote:
    > Same thing for me...
    > Large cables operators in Quebec have a lot of Class B and they offer
as may
    > ip as customers wants...
    > I cannot do this...

I suspect this is a misimpression, if an understandable one...  If the
cable operators are large, they certainly have more customers than would
be accommodated by a couple of actual legacy Class B networks.  That means
that they're coming back to ARIN periodically to get more space.  If
they're coming back for more space, they have to justify their current
sub-allocations just as you do, and so they're operating under exactly the
rules you do.  How many addresses a customer _wants_ is irrelevant. Both
you and the cable operator have the same capacity to give them as many as
they _need_.

                                -Bill

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN
Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.





From paul at vix.com  Sat Oct  6 21:08:48 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:08:48 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementonLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:50:31 -0400."
	<200710062350.l96NoWBb008794@txslsmtp2.vzwmail.net> 
References: <200710062350.l96NoWBb008794@txslsmtp2.vzwmail.net> 
Message-ID: <50465.1191719328@sa.vix.com>

> IP pricing is not fair and everyone knows it's not fair, but change takes
> courage and I don't think ARIN management has that needed courage.

i disagree.  at the top of page 3 of the 2006 annual report, which is online
at <http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual/report2006.pdf>, we see:

	"Public Participation Leading to Positive Results"
			"Who is ARIN? You Are!"

i agree with this.  what it means is, ARIN is controlled by the community,
and "ARIN management" serves the community's stated interests.  i think that
the community has got plenty of courage, and that ARIN management has got
plenty of competence.

if you think something's not fair, make a policy proposal to fix it.  if you
can get public support then it'll mean others agree as to what is/isn't fair.

note, i am an ARIN Trustee as well as president of ISC (an ARIN Member.)


From tom at lanline.com  Sun Oct  7 11:09:11 2007
From: tom at lanline.com (Thomas Leonard)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 11:09:11 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementonLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <50465.1191719328@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <200710071509.l97F9JP03164@mail.lanline.com>

Not true.  In December 2006, I wrote a letter to ARIN regarding the pricing discrepancies between "legacy" ip holders and ARIN's
members.  ARIN replied  that they did not have any authority over "legacy" ip holders.  Clearly and legally, that has changed and so
should the pricing.

Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500 
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 9:09 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementonLegacyassignments?(fwd)

> IP pricing is not fair and everyone knows it's not fair, but change takes
> courage and I don't think ARIN management has that needed courage.

i disagree.  at the top of page 3 of the 2006 annual report, which is online
at <http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual/report2006.pdf>, we see:

	"Public Participation Leading to Positive Results"
			"Who is ARIN? You Are!"

i agree with this.  what it means is, ARIN is controlled by the community,
and "ARIN management" serves the community's stated interests.  i think that
the community has got plenty of courage, and that ARIN management has got
plenty of competence.

if you think something's not fair, make a policy proposal to fix it.  if you
can get public support then it'll mean others agree as to what is/isn't fair.

note, i am an ARIN Trustee as well as president of ISC (an ARIN Member.)
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.





From paul at vix.com  Sun Oct  7 12:14:53 2007
From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:14:53 +0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementonLegacyassignments?(fwd)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:09:11 -0400."
	<200710071509.l97F9JP03164@mail.lanline.com> 
References: <200710071509.l97F9JP03164@mail.lanline.com> 
Message-ID: <55815.1191773693@sa.vix.com>

> Not true.

well, actually, we could both be right.

> In December 2006, I wrote a letter to ARIN regarding the pricing
> discrepancies between "legacy" ip holders and ARIN's members.  ARIN replied
> that they did not have any authority over "legacy" ip holders.

a letter is not a policy proposal.  i havn't seen the letter or the response
but it sounds as if ARIN's management gave you a literally true answer, where
what you needed was a prospective answer.  to get a prospective answer, you
have to go to the members, or the public, rather than the management team.

(this follows from the fact that ARIN management studiously avoids taking any
position on the wisdom of policy proposals, other than according to the
difficulty of implementing them.  it's a good checks/balances system and i'm
somewhat mystified that RIR staff often authors proposals in other regions.)

> Clearly and legally, that has changed and so should the pricing.

i don't know if i agree with "clearly".  ARIN has the power to be useful, but
noone except the RFC2050-era IANA ever had the power to dictate terms to
legacy holders.  (and it's very much not "clear" that the RFC2050-era IANA
still exists, what with the subsequent creation of ICANN and ASO and NRO.)

the utility argument boils down to "what restrictions and fees are legacy
holders generally prepared to accept from ARIN and what rights and privileges
will they want in return?"  i believe that there is a middle ground between
the carrots and sticks here.  but i pretty much don't expect unilaterally
imposed terms, which means, in turn, that i pretty much don't expect "sin tax"
level fees from legacy holders.  this may mean that it's not possible to
incent conservation, or promote competition, using fee levels as a tool.  but
there are other worthy goals for ARIN, its members, and the legacy community,
to jointly pursue.



From dean at av8.net  Sun Oct  7 20:43:37 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 20:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <p0624080ec32c75f0ea2b@[192.168.3.65]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710072029240.15435-100000@citation2.av8.net>


Perhaps I can rephrase the question into two clear parts:

1. "Has ARIN Counsel made a definitive statement on the subject of 
ARIN's obligations to Legacy assignments?"  

2. "If yes, is Stephen Sprunk's report of such statement to IETF 
accurate?"


Another issue inline:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:

> >So, what's the story about that statement?
> 
> I don't think there's a "story", but let me rephrase and see if
> it helps: the right of legacy space holders to receive free ARIN
> services is not, per se, a legal issue, as ARIN has no obligation
> arisen from its incorporation or organization that compels it
> to provide free services to the legacy community. 

This addresses somewhat the underlying issue about ARIN's obligations to
legacy assignments. Your response is somewhat disturbing.

So, as I read your response, it seems you are asserting that ARIN
doesn't need to respect its obligations to prior IANA assignments. Is
that right? I think there is a strong argument, both morally and
legally, that those prior assignments represent obligations on ARIN,
from ARIN's inception, and that ARIN is compelled to continue to honor
the terms of those assignments.  I'd say that's a legal issue, even if
there isn't an active lawsuit on the subject.



-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From jcurran at istaff.org  Sun Oct  7 21:07:35 2007
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:07:35 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710072029240.15435-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710072029240.15435-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <p06240807c32f2e6324dd@[192.168.3.65]>

At 8:43 PM -0400 10/7/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>Perhaps I can rephrase the question into two clear parts:
>
>1. "Has ARIN Counsel made a definitive statement on the subject of
>ARIN's obligations to Legacy assignments?"

I believe this has been covered in detail:  Yes, to the effect
that there's no legal obligation.  This doesn't mean ARIN
doesn't have any obligation here, only that it is based on
the direction of the community more than any matter of law.

>2. "If yes, is Stephen Sprunk's report of such statement to IETF
>accurate?"

Stephen actually extracted from transcript of the last ARIN
meeting in San Juan, and it appears to be accurate from my
quick review.
 
>I think there is a strong argument, both morally and
>legally, that those prior assignments represent obligations on ARIN,
>from ARIN's inception, and that ARIN is compelled to continue to honor
>the terms of those assignments.  I'd say that's a legal issue, even if
>there isn't an active lawsuit on the subject.

ARIN's counsel seems to disagree on that topic, if by
"honor the terms of those assignments" you actually
mean "provide free services".  Note - I was the one
who asked the question to counsel, specifically to get
formally answered, since it has been asked from time
to time, and it's relevant to members and AC in their
deliberations on policy.

If the community determines that ARIN should provide
such services to legacy holders and directs accordingly,
then providing those services is an obligation.  That's
been to situation to date, and there is no reason that
it needs to change.

/John


From dean at av8.net  Sun Oct  7 21:47:54 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:47:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <p06240807c32f2e6324dd@[192.168.3.65]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710072134560.15482-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:

> At 8:43 PM -0400 10/7/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >Perhaps I can rephrase the question into two clear parts:
> >
> >1. "Has ARIN Counsel made a definitive statement on the subject of
> >ARIN's obligations to Legacy assignments?"
> 
> I believe this has been covered in detail:  Yes, to the effect
> that there's no legal obligation.  This doesn't mean ARIN
> doesn't have any obligation here, only that it is based on
> the direction of the community more than any matter of law.

A statement "to the effect of" means to imply something. That is not a
clear definitive or formal statement.

> >2. "If yes, is Stephen Sprunk's report of such statement to IETF
> >accurate?"
> 
> Stephen actually extracted from transcript of the last ARIN meeting in
> San Juan, and it appears to be accurate from my quick review.

Stephen seems to have extracted only the first half of the statement
from the Meeting. Stephen's summary doesn't appear accurate from my
review. In that statement, the lawyer goes on and states that he isn't
sure of the constitutionality of what's being proposing, and states that
he is still exploring legal theories. Since he hasn't even decided on a
legal theory, it seems pretty clear he hasn't made any definitive
statement on the subject. Quoting only the first half of his statement
and ignoring the significant latter part is quoting the statement wildly
out of context.



> >I think there is a strong argument, both morally and
> >legally, that those prior assignments represent obligations on ARIN,
> >from ARIN's inception, and that ARIN is compelled to continue to honor
> >the terms of those assignments.  I'd say that's a legal issue, even if
> >there isn't an active lawsuit on the subject.
> 
> ARIN's counsel seems to disagree on that topic, if by "honor the terms
> of those assignments" you actually mean "provide free services".  

There is a tremendous difference between "seems" and "does". I'm asking
for a clear statement.  Something so clear that one can launch a suit
for declaritive judgement on the issue.


> Note - I was the one who asked the question to counsel, specifically
> to get formally answered, since it has been asked from time to time,
> and it's relevant to members and AC in their deliberations on policy.

Where is the formal answer?  Informal verbal statements don't qualify as
a formal answer.

> If the community determines that ARIN should provide such services to
> legacy holders and directs accordingly, then providing those services
> is an obligation.  That's been to situation to date, and there is no
> reason that it needs to change.

Actually, there does seem to be a change in view on the Board of
Trustees.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From jcurran at istaff.org  Sun Oct  7 23:04:01 2007
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 23:04:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710072134560.15482-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710072134560.15482-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <p0624080bc32f3ed1fec8@[192.168.3.65]>

At 9:47 PM -0400 10/7/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > >(Dean asks)
> > >1. "Has ARIN Counsel made a definitive statement on the subject of
> > >ARIN's obligations to Legacy assignments?"
>>
>> I believe this has been covered in detail:  Yes, to the effect
>> that there's no legal obligation.  This doesn't mean ARIN
>> doesn't have any obligation here, only that it is based on
>> the direction of the community more than any matter of law.
>
>A statement "to the effect of" means to imply something. That is not a
>clear definitive or formal statement.

I stand corrected: Counsel answered a question at the public
meeting on the matter of ARIN's ability to deny free services to
legacy holders and stated that it would be permitted in his
judgement as a matter of law.

Whether that was a clear, definitive, or formal statement for your
purposes I do not know, as it pertains specifically to the obligation
of providing of "free" registry services, and it was made before the
participants of our public policy meeting.

> > >2. "If yes, is Stephen Sprunk's report of such statement to IETF
>> >accurate?"
>>
> > Stephen actually extracted from transcript of the last ARIN meeting in
>> San Juan, and it appears to be accurate from my quick review.
>
>Stephen seems to have extracted only the first half of the statement
>from the Meeting. Stephen's summary doesn't appear accurate from my
>review. In that statement, the lawyer goes on and states that he isn't
>sure of the constitutionality of what's being proposing, and states that
>he is still exploring legal theories. Since he hasn't even decided on a
>legal theory, it seems pretty clear he hasn't made any definitive
>statement on the subject. Quoting only the first half of his statement
>and ignoring the significant latter part is quoting the statement wildly
>out of context.

Steven's statement was:
   "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
    ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
    legacy assignments"

Please refer to the transcript.  Counsel's statements with respect
to denial of the free services to legacy holders are extremely clear. 
The exact quote from the transcript:

"And the denial of those free services to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law. I've thought about it that far. I haven't thought carefully about what would be the stick beyond denial of those free services. And in my view, the two are quite different. "

The remainder of Mr. Ryan's response is about measures *beyond*
denial of free services to legacy holders, and as you noted, he states
that he hadn't given that matter the same level of thought, and is
still exploring legal theories.  Steven didn't include the remainder
because it's about actions "beyond the denial of those free services".

> > If the community determines that ARIN should provide such services to
>> legacy holders and directs accordingly, then providing those services
>> is an obligation.  That's been to situation to date, and there is no
>> reason that it needs to change.
>
>Actually, there does seem to be a change in view on the Board of
>Trustees.

The Board has heard lots of comments that we need more outreach
to legacy holders, and that we need a way for legacy holders that
wish to participate the ARIN community to do so while maintaining
their current resources.  Beyond that, there are several hundred
emails on PPML which make suggestions for how to proceed with
respect to legacy address holders, and they range all over from
"take back the blocks if they don't reply" to "the status quo is fine". 

ARIN held a panel at the last meeting specifically to allow many
different views to be aired in a public manner, including getting
counsel to provide his legal perspective.  This was all done so that
the community could see the various aspects of this complex issue
and decide if anything needs to be done.   There will be even more
discussion of this topic at the ARIN upcoming meeting next week.

Until the community comes up with a consensus position, there
isn't any reason for the ARIN Board to act on this matter.  I'd
encourage everyone's participation in the upcoming meeting
(either in person or via the remote participation arrangements)
so that we can ensure that any action taken is the result of
thoughtful deliberation.

/John





From dean at av8.net  Mon Oct  8 11:15:36 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:15:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <p0624080bc32f3ed1fec8@[192.168.3.65]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:

> At 9:47 PM -0400 10/7/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > > >(Dean asks)
> > > >1. "Has ARIN Counsel made a definitive statement on the subject of
> > > >ARIN's obligations to Legacy assignments?"
> >>
> >> I believe this has been covered in detail:  Yes, to the effect
> >> that there's no legal obligation.  This doesn't mean ARIN
> >> doesn't have any obligation here, only that it is based on
> >> the direction of the community more than any matter of law.
> >
> >A statement "to the effect of" means to imply something. That is not a
> >clear definitive or formal statement.
> 
> I stand corrected: Counsel answered a question at the public
> meeting on the matter of ARIN's ability to deny free services to
> legacy holders and stated that it would be permitted in his
> judgement as a matter of law.

Actually, at the meeting he said that the law permitted one to deny free
services to those _without_an_agreement_. This is a general principle
true for any business.  However, Legacy's _do_ have an agreement with
the government. So this general principle is not true with respect to
ARIN Legacy's.

If fact, no statement was made specifically about Legacy's _with_ an
agreement during the meeting.  I know of no Legacy holders that do not
have an agreement.  Do you know of any such holders without agreements?



> Whether that was a clear, definitive, or formal statement for your
> purposes I do not know, as it pertains specifically to the obligation
> of providing of "free" registry services, and it was made before the
> participants of our public policy meeting.

You said that you had asked Counsel to prepare a formal statement. Where
is that statement?  Whenever I have made request for _formal_ opinion
from Counsel, I get a written legal opinion with lots of citations.

> > > >2. "If yes, is Stephen Sprunk's report of such statement to IETF
> >> >accurate?"
> >>
> > > Stephen actually extracted from transcript of the last ARIN meeting in
> >> San Juan, and it appears to be accurate from my quick review.
> >
> >Stephen seems to have extracted only the first half of the statement
> >from the Meeting. Stephen's summary doesn't appear accurate from my
> >review. In that statement, the lawyer goes on and states that he isn't
> >sure of the constitutionality of what's being proposing, and states that
> >he is still exploring legal theories. Since he hasn't even decided on a
> >legal theory, it seems pretty clear he hasn't made any definitive
> >statement on the subject. Quoting only the first half of his statement
> >and ignoring the significant latter part is quoting the statement wildly
> >out of context.
> 
> Steven's statement was:
>    "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
>     ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
>     legacy assignments"
> 
> Please refer to the transcript.  Counsel's statements with respect
> to denial of the free services to legacy holders are extremely clear. 
> The exact quote from the transcript:
> 
> "And the denial of those free services to legacy address holders
> pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly permitted, in my
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> judgment, as a matter of law. I've thought about it that far. I
> haven't thought carefully about what would be the stick beyond denial
> of those free services. And in my view, the two are quite different. "

Except Legacy's aren't lacking an agreement.  You have paper records of
these agreements with the government. Do you mean to deny the fact that
the Legacy's have an agreement with the government that ARIN is
obligated to honor?

> The remainder of Mr. Ryan's response is about measures *beyond*
> denial of free services to legacy holders, and as you noted, he states
> that he hadn't given that matter the same level of thought, and is
> still exploring legal theories.  Steven didn't include the remainder
> because it's about actions "beyond the denial of those free services".

No, it is about getting back legacy resources. If there were in fact no
agreement, that would be no problem as well.

> > > If the community determines that ARIN should provide such services to
> >> legacy holders and directs accordingly, then providing those services
> >> is an obligation.  That's been to situation to date, and there is no
> >> reason that it needs to change.
> >
> >Actually, there does seem to be a change in view on the Board of
> >Trustees.
> 
> The Board has heard lots of comments that we need more outreach
> to legacy holders, and that we need a way for legacy holders that
> wish to participate the ARIN community to do so while maintaining
> their current resources.  Beyond that, there are several hundred
> emails on PPML which make suggestions for how to proceed with
> respect to legacy address holders, and they range all over from
> "take back the blocks if they don't reply" to "the status quo is fine". 
> 
> ARIN held a panel at the last meeting specifically to allow many
> different views to be aired in a public manner, including getting
> counsel to provide his legal perspective.  This was all done so that
> the community could see the various aspects of this complex issue
> and decide if anything needs to be done.   There will be even more
> discussion of this topic at the ARIN upcoming meeting next week.
> 
> Until the community comes up with a consensus position, there
> isn't any reason for the ARIN Board to act on this matter.  I'd
> encourage everyone's participation in the upcoming meeting
> (either in person or via the remote participation arrangements)
> so that we can ensure that any action taken is the result of
> thoughtful deliberation.
> 
> /John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz  Mon Oct  8 11:32:24 2007
From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:32:24 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <a06240809c32ffc38b9e5@[192.168.1.100]>

At 11:15 -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote:

>Except Legacy's aren't lacking an agreement.  You have paper records of
>these agreements with the government. Do you mean to deny the fact that
>the Legacy's have an agreement with the government that ARIN is
>obligated to honor?

Quoting: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html

"MR. RYAN: Well, from a legal perspective, this is why I love you 
guys. I have never seen the United States government give away 
anything without any strings attached before. And so there's a real 
question in my mind whether -- with regard to some of the legacy 
address holders who received early addresses who were in the Defense 
or academic community but held Defense contracts, whether the 
issuance of space at that time was pursuant to traditional government 
theories of government-furnished material or government-furnished 
equipment. The paper record is really pretty strange when one looks 
at it. And it does appear -- to the extent that I've had an 
opportunity to look at some of the paperwork -- that it's one of the 
few times in the history of governments that they gave away something 
seemingly without a clear set of strings attached to it. ..."

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071008/6c740814/attachment.html>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Oct  8 11:36:54 2007
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:36:54 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <p06240800c32ffb9e2683@[192.168.3.65]>

At 11:15 AM -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>Actually, at the meeting he said that the law permitted one to deny free
>services to those _without_an_agreement_. This is a general principle
>true for any business.  However, Legacy's _do_ have an agreement with
>the government. So this general principle is not true with respect to
>ARIN Legacy's.
>
>If fact, no statement was made specifically about Legacy's _with_ an
>agreement during the meeting.  I know of no Legacy holders that do not
>have an agreement.  Do you know of any such holders without agreements?

The vast majority of legacy holders do not have an agreement with
ARIN (which is the provider of these services and the context of his
statement).

> > Whether that was a clear, definitive, or formal statement for your
>> purposes I do not know, as it pertains specifically to the obligation
>> of providing of "free" registry services, and it was made before the
>> participants of our public policy meeting.
>
>You said that you had asked Counsel to prepare a formal statement. Where
>is that statement?  Whenever I have made request for _formal_ opinion
>from Counsel, I get a written legal opinion with lots of citations.

I stand corrected, as I noted earlier.  I made a request to counsel to
address the matter at the policy meeting meeting panel on legacy
address space.

/John


From bicknell at ufp.org  Mon Oct  8 12:02:13 2007
From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:02:13 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <p0624080bc32f3ed1fec8@[192.168.3.65]>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <20071008160213.GA44540@ussenterprise.ufp.org>

In a message written on Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:15:36AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Actually, at the meeting he said that the law permitted one to deny free
> services to those _without_an_agreement_. This is a general principle
> true for any business.  However, Legacy's _do_ have an agreement with
> the government. So this general principle is not true with respect to
> ARIN Legacy's.
> 
> If fact, no statement was made specifically about Legacy's _with_ an
> agreement during the meeting.  I know of no Legacy holders that do not
> have an agreement.  Do you know of any such holders without agreements?

I think there are some fundamental questions that are difficult to
address.  Specifically, to break them out:

1) Did legacy holders have an agreement with the government?

2) Does that agreement cover services in perpetuity?

3) Did these agreements survive the various transfers (DDN Nic to SRI
   NIC, SRI NIC to Internic, InterNIC to ARIN, the trail varies in
   length due to the age of the allocation)?

4) Does the agreement permit modification to the agreement?

4a) Unilaterially?

I am not a lawyer, and have tried to talk to several lawyers about
all of these issues; I have never gotten a straight answer on any
of them.  From reading a lot online, I think that's because in many
areas the law is not clear.

Some things are clear.  As ARIN Council as stated, any legacy holder
who received their allocation while they were doing work for hire
for the federal government probably not only has no right to their
allocation, but actually should have already returned it under
federal rules (or, I suppose converted it to a new contract).

Outside of that, it would seem to me anyone who wanted to prove
they had a valid contract with ARIN would have an extremely uphill
battle.  They would have to show that an oral contract with a
previous government contractor transferred through the various chain
of ownership.  That the contract either had no termination date; and
my understanding is that in most jurisdictions no termination date
is illegal by statute; or that it had a termination date that is
still in force.  Further, you would have to argue that the agreement
does not allow any modification to the agreement.

Probably most importantly is oral contracts require there to be a
meeting of the minds; that both sides agreed to the terms.  So not
only would a legacy holder need to show they believe they have a
contract that survived the transfer, is still in the term, and can't
be modified but they would have to show that's what DDN, SRI,
Internet, or the federal government intended when they entered the
agreement.  I think this is also where history is against legacy
holders; many of the exact same people had domain names, issued
through the exact same process.  They were issued new contracts on
new terms, and accepted them.

I have a hard time believing that a judge, presented with a company
that received a Class C and a domain name both under the same oral
contract with the same original entity would accept their assentation
that the network number cannot be modified when they silently
accepted a modification to the domain name contract.

Courts also seem to look at what is "ordinary and customary" in the
industry when interpreting oral contracts.  All current RSA's have
a 1 year term, and allow unilateral modification.  All domain name
agreements, grown out of the same root have similar provisions.

> Except Legacy's aren't lacking an agreement.  You have paper records of
> these agreements with the government. Do you mean to deny the fact that
> the Legacy's have an agreement with the government that ARIN is
> obligated to honor?

I don't think anyone argues that legacy holders received an address
block from one of ARIN's predecessors.  I think the entire disagreement
is if that "contract" is still in effect at all; and if it is still
in effect what were the terms.  Again, I'm not a lawyer but when
both sides disagree about the terms of an oral contract that does
not bode well for the oral contract to be enforceable.

I am afraid no lawyer is going to be able to answer that with
certainty.  At the end of the day there is discretion for a judge
to go either way, and so it would take an actual court case to
settle the issue in a definitive way.  Anything less is at best an
exercise in probabilities.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org


From dean at av8.net  Mon Oct  8 12:13:25 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <p06240800c32ffb9e2683@[192.168.3.65]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081204160.16356-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:

> At 11:15 AM -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >Actually, at the meeting he said that the law permitted one to deny free
> >services to those _without_an_agreement_. This is a general principle
> >true for any business.  However, Legacy's _do_ have an agreement with
> >the government. So this general principle is not true with respect to
> >ARIN Legacy's.
> >
> >If fact, no statement was made specifically about Legacy's _with_ an
> >agreement during the meeting.  I know of no Legacy holders that do not
> >have an agreement.  Do you know of any such holders without agreements?
> 
> The vast majority of legacy holders do not have an agreement with
> ARIN (which is the provider of these services and the context of his
> statement).

True, none of the Legacy holders have an agreement with __ARIN__; If
they did, that fact would make them (rather obviously) non-Legacy
holders.  Legacy's have an agreement with the Government, via SRI or
Network Solutions.

ARIN has an obligation to honor those government agreements.  ARIN has
honored those agreements and ARIN's obligations under those agreements
for more than 10 years.

None of the registrations are property of ARIN. ARIN doesn't have
'title' to the IP blocks either.  The blocks and the registration
records belong to the government, and ARIN will have to transfer the
registrations to the successor of ARIN as its final obligation.

> > > Whether that was a clear, definitive, or formal statement for your
> >> purposes I do not know, as it pertains specifically to the obligation
> >> of providing of "free" registry services, and it was made before the
> >> participants of our public policy meeting.
> >
> >You said that you had asked Counsel to prepare a formal statement. Where
> >is that statement?  Whenever I have made request for _formal_ opinion
> >from Counsel, I get a written legal opinion with lots of citations.
> 
> I stand corrected, as I noted earlier.  I made a request to counsel to
> address the matter at the policy meeting meeting panel on legacy
> address space.

Ok. Fair enough. Can you ask the Counsel the prepare a formal statement
on ARIN's obligations to the Legacy Holder's through the government
agreements with the Legacy Holders?

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From michael at fullcontrol.net  Mon Oct  8 12:15:45 2007
From: michael at fullcontrol.net (Michael - FullControl Network)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:15:45 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <a06240809c32ffc38b9e5@[192.168.1.100]>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>
	<a06240809c32ffc38b9e5@[192.168.1.100]>
Message-ID: <047f01c809c6$7be97090$73bc51b0$@net>

unsubscribe

 

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Edward Lewis
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 10:32 AM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Cc: ed.lewis at neustar.biz
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

 

At 11:15 -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote:

 

>Except Legacy's aren't lacking an agreement.  You have paper records of
>these agreements with the government. Do you mean to deny the fact that
>the Legacy's have an agreement with the government that ARIN is

>obligated to honor?

 

Quoting: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html

 

"MR. RYAN: Well, from a legal perspective, this is why I love you guys. I
have never seen the United States government give away anything without any
strings attached before. And so there's a real question in my mind whether
-- with regard to some of the legacy address holders who received early
addresses who were in the Defense or academic community but held Defense
contracts, whether the issuance of space at that time was pursuant to
traditional government theories of government-furnished material or
government-furnished equipment. The paper record is really pretty strange
when one looks at it. And it does appear -- to the extent that I've had an
opportunity to look at some of the paperwork -- that it's one of the few
times in the history of governments that they gave away something seemingly
without a clear set of strings attached to it. ..."

 

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

 

Think glocally.  Act confused.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071008/f6b2f7f1/attachment.html>

From druiz at anillonetworks.com  Mon Oct  8 12:53:46 2007
From: druiz at anillonetworks.com (Daniel Ruiz)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:53:46 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <047f01c809c6$7be97090$73bc51b0$@net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081101290.16312-100000@citation2.av8.net>	<a06240809c32ffc38b9e5@[192.168.1.100]>
	<047f01c809c6$7be97090$73bc51b0$@net>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAIngjtoDOkxGs0E+o8hcoaPCgAAAEAAAAO7ePGc7BcpEpXXKMjFk0hIBAAAAAA==@anillonetworks.com>

unsubscribe

 

Daniel Ruiz

Senior Telecommunications Engineer

Anillo Networks, Inc.

655 S. Flower St. Suite 312

Los Angeles, CA 90017

(800) 544-0198

 

 

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be
secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, received late or incomplete, or could contain viruses. The sender
therefore does not accept liability for any error or omission in the
contents of this message, which arises as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version from the
sender.

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Michael - FullControl Network
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:16 AM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

 

unsubscribe

 

 

From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of Edward Lewis
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 10:32 AM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Cc: ed.lewis at neustar.biz
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

 

At 11:15 -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote:

 

>Except Legacy's aren't lacking an agreement.  You have paper records of
>these agreements with the government. Do you mean to deny the fact that
>the Legacy's have an agreement with the government that ARIN is

>obligated to honor?

 

Quoting: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html

 

"MR. RYAN: Well, from a legal perspective, this is why I love you guys. I
have never seen the United States government give away anything without any
strings attached before. And so there's a real question in my mind whether
-- with regard to some of the legacy address holders who received early
addresses who were in the Defense or academic community but held Defense
contracts, whether the issuance of space at that time was pursuant to
traditional government theories of government-furnished material or
government-furnished equipment. The paper record is really pretty strange
when one looks at it. And it does appear -- to the extent that I've had an
opportunity to look at some of the paperwork -- that it's one of the few
times in the history of governments that they gave away something seemingly
without a clear set of strings attached to it. ..."

 

-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

 

Think glocally.  Act confused.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071008/bf7a7c85/attachment.html>

From jer at mia.net  Mon Oct  8 14:15:04 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:15:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081204160.16356-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081204160.16356-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <016884D9-ECD7-4FED-B695-F918B655140A@mia.net>


On Oct 8, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
>
> ARIN has an obligation to honor those government agreements.  ARIN has
> honored those agreements and ARIN's obligations under those agreements
> for more than 10 years.
>

Understood...

So who has the "obligation" to pay for this?

> None of the registrations are property of ARIN. ARIN doesn't have
> 'title' to the IP blocks either.  The blocks and the registration
> records belong to the government, and ARIN will have to transfer the
> registrations to the successor of ARIN as its final obligation.

But ARIN, more importantly it's members  apparently "own" the  
"obligation" to pay for the management of these blocks, correct?  I'm  
not sure I understand how any organization could possibly expect it's  
members to pay for obligations that they have no benefit in...

>
> Ok. Fair enough. Can you ask the Counsel the prepare a formal  
> statement
> on ARIN's obligations to the Legacy Holder's through the government
> agreements with the Legacy Holders?

To that end I would also hope that the burden for paying for such  
obligation be defined, ie., who is paying for these "obligations"?


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From Keith at jcc.com  Mon Oct  8 16:11:52 2007
From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:11:52 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
Message-ID: <52e4da70020adb486425c8c1d1117114470a8f1b@jcc.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy 
> Anthony Kinsey
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 2:15 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on 
> Legacy assignments?
> 
> 
> 
> So who has the "obligation" to pay for this?
> 

Who has an "obligation" to pay for what?

As a legacy address holder (our /24 was allocated in 1991), I've mostly
ignored ARIN, except for a couple of POC updates.

Until last spring when I received an invitation to join the Public
Policy Mailing List, I had received no communication from ARIN outside
of the POC updates. So, ARIN has mostly ignored me.

Much of the discussion of the "Counsel statement on Legacy assignments"
assumes that legacy address holders have not been paying their fair
share of something.  However, I have never received any communication
from ARIN inviting me to pay for something relative my legacy address.

So, as far as I can tell, I've paid everything that ARIN has ever asked.

Take a look at the ARIN web page.  What there gives information to
legacy address holders on what and why they should pay ARIN?

So, before spending a lot of time discussing whether or not ARIN has the
legal or moral right to stop providing services to legacy address
holders who haven't done something, ARIN needs to define what it wants
from legacy address holders and put in place the process and
documentation to allow legacy address holders to respond.


Keith


______________________________________________________________
 
Keith W. Hare                     JCC Consulting, Inc.
keith at jcc.com                     600 Newark Road
Phone: 740-587-0157               P.O. Box 381
Fax: 740-587-0163                 Granville, Ohio 43023
http://www.jcc.com                USA
______________________________________________________________
 





From tedm at ipinc.net  Mon Oct  8 19:09:00 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:09:00 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <52e4da70020adb486425c8c1d1117114470a8f1b@jcc.com>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOKEBKHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 1:12 PM
>To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>> Anthony Kinsey
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 2:15 PM
>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
>> Legacy assignments?
>>
>>
>>
>> So who has the "obligation" to pay for this?
>>
>
>Who has an "obligation" to pay for what?
>
>As a legacy address holder (our /24 was allocated in 1991), I've mostly
>ignored ARIN, except for a couple of POC updates.
>
>Until last spring when I received an invitation to join the Public
>Policy Mailing List, I had received no communication from ARIN outside
>of the POC updates. So, ARIN has mostly ignored me.
>
>Much of the discussion of the "Counsel statement on Legacy assignments"
>assumes that legacy address holders have not been paying their fair
>share of something.  However, I have never received any communication
>from ARIN inviting me to pay for something relative my legacy address.
>
>So, as far as I can tell, I've paid everything that ARIN has ever asked.
>
>Take a look at the ARIN web page.  What there gives information to
>legacy address holders on what and why they should pay ARIN?
>
>So, before spending a lot of time discussing whether or not ARIN has the
>legal or moral right to stop providing services to legacy address
>holders who haven't done something, ARIN needs to define what it wants
>from legacy address holders and put in place the process and
>documentation to allow legacy address holders to respond.
>

This disingenuous story ignores the real issue.

The rest of the IPv4 world has been out there doing their thing - and their
thing involved watching out for your interests.  If they hadn't
been doing this, your block could have likely been routed by someone else
somewhere else and you would have lost the use of it.  I'm sure if that
happened you would have suddenly 'discovered' ARIN real fast.

Now, nobody so far is coming after you for your /24.  It is small.  And of
no real use to affect IPv4 runout rates.  Because of this, your ARIN
experience
really has no bearing on the issue.

The real issue is threefold:

1) Is there enough unused IPv4 in large legacy holders to make a difference
in
IPv4 runout rates?

2) If there is, should ARIN spend time attempting to retrieve it?

3) If ARIN should, is it even possible to go about doing so without creating
undesirable side effects?

All 3 of these questions are tied up with each other, and if the answer to
any
of them is NO then the entire issue is moot.

There is no point in putting a lot of effort into answering #1 if the answer
to
#3 is a no.  Same goes for vis-versa.  Same goes for question #2.

This thread was discussing #3 and your saying not to discuss that but
instead to
discuss question #1.  Of course, if the thread actually did start discussing
#1
you would probably say there is no point in discussing #1 if we don't
discuss #3
first.

Any question is equally valid to discuss "first" as ultimately they are all
part
of the same issue.

Ted



From Keith at jcc.com  Tue Oct  9 00:44:35 2007
From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:44:35 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
Message-ID: <4ff92362adb5095c139b1eb411cade1f470b0745@jcc.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:09 PM
 
> The real issue is threefold:
> 
> 1) Is there enough unused IPv4 in large legacy holders to 
> make a difference in
> IPv4 runout rates?
> 
> 2) If there is, should ARIN spend time attempting to retrieve it?
> 
> 3) If ARIN should, is it even possible to go about doing so 
> without creating undesirable side effects?
> 
> All 3 of these questions are tied up with each other, and if 
> the answer to any of them is NO then the entire issue is moot.
> 

If this is the real issue, then why do the discussions of legacy address
holders always turn into claims that legacy address holders haven't paid
their fair share?

Keith


From dean at av8.com  Mon Oct  8 16:03:55 2007
From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <016884D9-ECD7-4FED-B695-F918B655140A@mia.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081530210.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey wrote:

> 
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >
> >
> > ARIN has an obligation to honor those government agreements.  ARIN has
> > honored those agreements and ARIN's obligations under those agreements
> > for more than 10 years.
> >
> 
> Understood...
> 
> So who has the "obligation" to pay for this?

ARIN has that obligation.  Just like the private toll company that has
to maintain the road in return for the opportunity to collect tolls,
likewise ARIN the obligation to maintain the government records in
return for the privilege and opportunity to collect tolls on new
delegations. Internet Legacy's are no different from legacy underground
cable rights that pre-dated the toll company.  The toll company may have
to store and maintain those records, too.

What ARIN is proposing is kind of like the toll road operator saying
(after 11 years) that it doesn't want to maintain the roads anymore; it
will only maintain the toll booths, since only the toll booths produce
revenue, and the roads are just an expense outside the toll booths.  It
says this even though for 11 years, it maintained the roads and it was
always understood that it had to maintain the roads.  Not only that, but
it was the third such toll operator, and each of the prior operators
also maintained the roads and understood that was required of them.

Not only all this, but ARIN also has saved up 7 years of operating
capital, and as a result, ARIN stains non-profit status to have such
continuous long term profit. It is plainly collecting too much on too
little, with (some say) too much staff travel expense.

This is an unjustifiably ridiculous position and suggests to me that it
really is time for a new operator.

> > None of the registrations are property of ARIN. ARIN doesn't have
> > 'title' to the IP blocks either.  The blocks and the registration
> > records belong to the government, and ARIN will have to transfer the
> > registrations to the successor of ARIN as its final obligation.
> 
> But ARIN, more importantly it's members apparently "own" the
> "obligation" to pay for the management of these blocks, correct?  I'm
> not sure I understand how any organization could possibly expect it's
> members to pay for obligations that they have no benefit in...

In return for assuming the burden of obligations and costs of operating
the registry service, the members of ARIN have had the privileges of
making the operational decisions and have had the opportunity to collect
fees on new people since 1996. They didn't get that opportunity without
some obligations and costs.  ARIN is just an _operator_ of the registry
service for the DoC.  This comes with some obligations and expenses, and
isn't just all profit.

> > Ok. Fair enough. Can you ask the Counsel the prepare a formal
> > statement on ARIN's obligations to the Legacy Holder's through the
> > government agreements with the Legacy Holders?
> 
> To that end I would also hope that the burden for paying for such
> obligation be defined, ie., who is paying for these "obligations"?

John, can we get this formal opinion? I understand it may take a little
while to have Atty Ryan produce this.  Can you commit to having the
opinion produced?

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   





From dean at av8.com  Mon Oct  8 20:38:29 2007
From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOKEBKHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710082012280.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> This disingenuous story ignores the real issue.

Hardly disingenuous. I think it mirrors a large number of Legacy 
experiences.

> The rest of the IPv4 world has been out there doing their thing - and
> their thing involved watching out for your interests.  If they hadn't
> been doing this, your block could have likely been routed by someone
> else somewhere else and you would have lost the use of it.  I'm sure
> if that happened you would have suddenly 'discovered' ARIN real fast.

You've been watching out for Legacy interests?  I don't think so.  
Legacy's made this sandbox. You are the one playing in _our_ sandbox,
with toys that _we_ made.

Legacy's haven't just 'discovered ARIN'. We've always known who ARIN
was, who the Internic was before that, and SRI before that. I think
you've taken some comments a little too literally. It is true that
Legacy's haven't been participating in ARIN, and so people like you have
been bashing Legacy's with little rebuttal. But not knowing who ARIN is?  
Or where to change registration information?  Please. Legacy's know
exactly who to come to if someone changed the registry improperly.

> Now, nobody so far is coming after you for your /24.  It is small.  
> And of no real use to affect IPv4 runout rates.  Because of this, your
> ARIN experience really has no bearing on the issue.

Come after someone?  You need some legal basis to 'come after' someone.

ARIN's Counsel doesn't even know if an Act of Congress can take these
resources away.

Taking away just reverse DNS and electronic whois, but keeping
registrations as-is, isn't going to fly.  Those are the only 'free
services' that ARIN provides. BTW, even if Sprunk were right and ARIN
didn't have obligation to provide those services, that still wouldn't
fly:  Non-legacy's want to see reverse DNS for Legacy's and they want to
see whois data for Legacy's.  These are just dumb ideas and stupid
schemes.

> The real issue is threefold:
> 
> 1) Is there enough unused IPv4 in large legacy holders to make a
> difference in IPv4 runout rates?
> 
> 2) If there is, should ARIN spend time attempting to retrieve it?
> 
> 3) If ARIN should, is it even possible to go about doing so without creating
> undesirable side effects?

This list is _your_ interest in trying to unlawfully take these
resources for your own benefit.

Standing against your scheme is the fact that it isn't legal. Legacy's
have as much right to monetize these resources as you do.  MIT has the
same right as British Telecom to monetize IP resources.  Legacy's have
more right, if one could possibly have more right.

		--Dean


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   





From dean at av8.com  Tue Oct  9 00:57:14 2007
From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:57:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
	(fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710090053200.16643-100000@citation2.av8.net>

FYI (to ppml)

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:

> At 8:08 PM -0400 10/8/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >BTW, Curran has corrected himself: There is indeed no formal statement
> >on the subject from ARIN counsel. I've asked for a formal statement to
> >be produced, but haven't heard back whether they will do that.
> 
> Dean - The request was noted and will be brought before the Board.

Good. When can we expect to have this statement?

> >The statement from Sprunk to IETF relies on an informal statement of
> >Counsel and Sprunk omitted significant qualifying context from the
> >informal statement.
> 
> The full transcript (including Counsel's response to the question)
> is available online; you can keep repeating that Steven omitted
> context but a carefully reading doesn't support that conclusion.

I don't know how you can possibly say that with a straight face, given
your correction already. Sprunk said to the IETF:

 "[ARIN] Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
  ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for legacy
  assignments, though it does have a moral one since that was a 
  condition of ARIN's creation.  Counsel also stated, however, it is
  unclear that ARIN could assign those same numbers to someone else
  later."

Sprunk's full message is at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg48312.html

In fact, Counsel did not assert "that ARIN [doesn't have] any legal
obligation to maintain registry services for legacy assignments".  
Counsel said nothing of the sort, as the full text below reveals.  

Counsel acknowledges an agreement; a 'government give-away of rights
without strings':

  "I have never seen the United States government give away anything 
   without any strings attached before." 

Counsel then notes that government contract holders' space was probably
'government furnished', and therefore should be returned at the end of
contract. Counsel goes on to acknowledge there are indeed legacy holders
to whom "carrots" rather than sticks must be offered. Implicitly, this
denies the notion that those legacy's have no legal rights, as Sprunk
implies.  Counsel then acknowledges the special unencumbered value of
this Legacy space:

  "Because there's a window coming that intersects with the IPv4 
   exhaustion issue, where for a brief time, these resources will
   actually become financially more valuable if they were unencumbered, 
   and where that value will only be for a limited period."

In this section, Counsel says they can deny free services to people
_without_an_agreement_.  But virtually every Legacy in fact has an
agreement in the form of a paper registration, a kind of license that
doesn't terminate. My FAA-issued pilot's license also never expires.  
All that can be disputed is the terms of the agreement. Further, Mr Ryan
notes that he hasn't thought much about it. He notes that an Act of
Congress may be needed to take back this space. He notes that such an
Act might not be constitutional. He notes he's only started to play with
theories. 

  "it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN is legally 
   permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit 
   trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide
   free services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those 
   free services to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of
   agreement is perfectly permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of
   law. I've thought about it that far. I haven't thought carefully
   about what would be the stick beyond denial of those free services.  
   And in my view, the two are quite different. The stick might be that
   we -- for example, I've thought about whether I could ask the United
   States Congress for authority to have the government obtain back
   that which the government gave. I don't know if that's
   constitutional, actually. I mean, I've started to play with different
   theories here."

None of this is very definite.

So from an implied formal statement that 'legacies have no rights', that 
Sprunk reported, we've shown that Atty Ryan actually stated:

 * an acknowledgement of a group of legacy's possessing a government
right with no strings attached
 * notes requirement of an Act of Congress to take back legacy space 
 * notes that such an Act might not be constitutional 
 * notes that he is 'playing with theories' that haven't been thought
through yet.

That's a pretty big change in meaning from Sprunk and Curran. Sprunk has
omitted the significant qualifications and context from the transcript,
as I have cited, and which Curran also omits.  Sprunk's report is indeed
inaccurate and misleading, as I reported. Curran's support for Sprunk's
report is similarly unfounded in fact.

I've identified a number of issues that Sprunk omitted. A close reading
of Sprunk's email doesn't find those issues mentioned. Rather, reading
Sprunk's report to the IETF one gets the impression that
  1. ARIN has in its possession a legal opinion that it in fact doesn't
have, and
  2. that ARIN has made a decision that it in fact hasn't made.

Therefore, Sprunk's message to the IETF is misleading, and Curran stands
corrected.  IETF remains misled and deceived by incorrect reports of the 
actual events.

John Curran has also been misreading the statement, asserting
incorrectly for example, that there was a formal statement when there
wasn't such a statement.  Curran has agreed to correction, but still
asserts mysteriously that Sprunk is correct.

Someone should inform the IETF that Sprunk and Curran have misled them.



The transcript is here
http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13

The complete relevant text is here:

MR. RYAN: Well, from a legal perspective, this is why I love you guys. I 
have never seen the United States government give away anything without 
any strings attached before. And so there's a real question in my mind 
whether -- with regard to some of the legacy address holders who 
received early addresses who were in the Defense or academic community 
but held Defense contracts, whether the issuance of space at that time 
was pursuant to traditional government theories of government-furnished 
material or government-furnished equipment. The paper record is really 
pretty strange when one looks at it. And it does appear -- to the extent 
that I've had an opportunity to look at some of the paperwork -- that 
it's one of the few times in the history of governments that they gave 
away something seemingly without a clear set of strings attached to it. 
I believe that those who are government contractors and who received it 
as government contractors actually have the weakest case to argue that 
they have some enhanced right over other members of the community in 
this regard. And I'm still evaluating the legal theories that address 
that. But looking more generally, there are clearly legacy address 
holders who are not government contractors who did get early resources, 
and who are clearly not covered by GFM, GFE -- any kind of theories with 
regard to that. And with regard to those people, from my legal 
standpoint as a person who has adopted the notion of RFC 2008 and all of 
the sort of learning of the community, I think what we need to do is 
fashion a -- I do think we need to fashion a policy proposal or a series 
of proposals that creates a series of carrots, but not particularly 
sticks, that would be intended to entice legacy holders to bring their 
resources into the system, to give up those resources that they don't 
need, and to actually come out of that process benefited as opposed to 
being treated in a detrimental or in a pejorative or even a negative way 
in any regard. And I think the sooner we adopt such a set of policies 
that are well-thought-out by this community, the better off we'll be 
legally as we address this situation. Because there's a window coming 
that intersects with the IPv4 exhaustion issue, where for a brief time, 
these resources will actually become financially more valuable if they 
were unencumbered, and where that value will only be for a limited 
period. So in that sense as a lawyer, I look forward to working with you 
to try and describe mechanisms that are affirmative, positive, and that 
entice people to feel that it is a civic duty, but maybe even a 
beneficial civic duty, to perform in that way.

MR. CURRAN: Can I ask one question, Steve? And this is asking as Counsel 
to ARIN. You said potentially, for those folks who have received legacy 
addresses who didn't necessarily get them through government contracts 
or GFE, that it might be useful to try to take an approach or a policy 
or a set of policies or actions that entice them to participate in the 
community -- the use of carrots, not sticks. My question is, is the 
shying away from sticks because it's not felt ARIN has any useful ones, 
or is it because of the liability that's entailed by doing that?

MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like 
here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by 
ARIN is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the 
non-profit trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to 
provide free services for legacy address holders. And the denial of 
those free services to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of 
agreement is perfectly permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law. 
I've thought about it that far. I haven't thought carefully about what 
would be the stick beyond denial of those free services. And in my view, 
the two are quite different. The stick might be that we -- for example, 
I've thought about whether I could ask the United States Congress for 
authority to have the government obtain back that which the government 
gave. I don't know if that's constitutional, actually. I mean, I've 
started to play with different theories here.





-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   








From Ron at Cleven.com  Tue Oct  9 05:02:36 2007
From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 04:02:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710082012280.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710082012280.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <470B43BC.4010903@Cleven.com>

                   Legacy's have as much right to monetize
                   these resources as you do.

Wow!  So THIS is what this discussion is about?  MIT, et al, are going 
to start selling all the IPV4 space they aren't using?  Are they going 
to sell them off to individuals or back to ARIN?

Gee, if ARIN has nothing in its charter relating to responsible 
delegation of IPV4 space, it really should have.  And, if it does have 
something in its charter relating to that, then the most obvious way to 
accomplish it is to charge a consistent per IP fee.  ARIN could also 
charge separately for registration services to account for the actual 
costs of rendering those services.  Those two concepts are NOT mutually 
exclusive.  At the risk of stating the obvious, the higher the per-IP 
price, the easier ARIN's job would be.

Finally, if ARIN does not have the legal authority to update its fee 
structures to incentify the preservation and responsible delegation of 
IPV4 space, then it is time to get Congress involved.  You can parse 
statements by attorneys all day long, but this is a no-brainer.


Dean Anderson wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>  
>
>>This disingenuous story ignores the real issue.
>>    
>>
>
>Hardly disingenuous. I think it mirrors a large number of Legacy 
>experiences.
>
>  
>
>>The rest of the IPv4 world has been out there doing their thing - and
>>their thing involved watching out for your interests.  If they hadn't
>>been doing this, your block could have likely been routed by someone
>>else somewhere else and you would have lost the use of it.  I'm sure
>>if that happened you would have suddenly 'discovered' ARIN real fast.
>>    
>>
>
>You've been watching out for Legacy interests?  I don't think so.  
>Legacy's made this sandbox. You are the one playing in _our_ sandbox,
>with toys that _we_ made.
>
>Legacy's haven't just 'discovered ARIN'. We've always known who ARIN
>was, who the Internic was before that, and SRI before that. I think
>you've taken some comments a little too literally. It is true that
>Legacy's haven't been participating in ARIN, and so people like you have
>been bashing Legacy's with little rebuttal. But not knowing who ARIN is?  
>Or where to change registration information?  Please. Legacy's know
>exactly who to come to if someone changed the registry improperly.
>
>  
>
>>Now, nobody so far is coming after you for your /24.  It is small.  
>>And of no real use to affect IPv4 runout rates.  Because of this, your
>>ARIN experience really has no bearing on the issue.
>>    
>>
>
>Come after someone?  You need some legal basis to 'come after' someone.
>
>ARIN's Counsel doesn't even know if an Act of Congress can take these
>resources away.
>
>Taking away just reverse DNS and electronic whois, but keeping
>registrations as-is, isn't going to fly.  Those are the only 'free
>services' that ARIN provides. BTW, even if Sprunk were right and ARIN
>didn't have obligation to provide those services, that still wouldn't
>fly:  Non-legacy's want to see reverse DNS for Legacy's and they want to
>see whois data for Legacy's.  These are just dumb ideas and stupid
>schemes.
>
>  
>
>>The real issue is threefold:
>>
>>1) Is there enough unused IPv4 in large legacy holders to make a
>>difference in IPv4 runout rates?
>>
>>2) If there is, should ARIN spend time attempting to retrieve it?
>>
>>3) If ARIN should, is it even possible to go about doing so without creating
>>undesirable side effects?
>>    
>>
>
>This list is _your_ interest in trying to unlawfully take these
>resources for your own benefit.
>
>Standing against your scheme is the fact that it isn't legal. Legacy's
>have as much right to monetize these resources as you do.  MIT has the
>same right as British Telecom to monetize IP resources.  Legacy's have
>more right, if one could possibly have more right.
>
>		--Dean
>
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071009/bae355eb/attachment.html>

From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Oct  9 08:30:21 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 05:30:21 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <4ff92362adb5095c139b1eb411cade1f470b0745@jcc.com>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOCEBLHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Keith W. Hare
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:45 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>
>
> 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:09 PM
> 
>> The real issue is threefold:
>> 
>> 1) Is there enough unused IPv4 in large legacy holders to 
>> make a difference in
>> IPv4 runout rates?
>> 
>> 2) If there is, should ARIN spend time attempting to retrieve it?
>> 
>> 3) If ARIN should, is it even possible to go about doing so 
>> without creating undesirable side effects?
>> 
>> All 3 of these questions are tied up with each other, and if 
>> the answer to any of them is NO then the entire issue is moot.
>> 
>
>If this is the real issue, then why do the discussions of legacy address
>holders always turn into claims that legacy address holders haven't paid
>their fair share?
>

Because there are a lot of people out there who think that
IPv4 resources are going to have value forever.  I have seen
repeated over and over on the list how we are going to be seeing
IPv4 routed on the Internet backbone for the next 20 years.
Meanwhile a small minority of people keep raising their hands and
saying "Ah, guys, practically nobodies routers have enough ram
to have a full IPv4 AND IPv6 BGP table"

The login among the "make legacy holders pay" crowd is something
along the lines of:

"we need IPv4 to delay IPv6 since we aren't ready for IPv6 yet.
Legacy holders have a lot of IPv4.  Since they aren't paying for
it they must not be using it.  Let's start billing them and the
sky will start raining IPv4.  How do we justify starting billing
them?"

This why question #1 exists.

It's pretty clear that if the answer to question #1 & #2 was yes, then
no matter how much thrashing around the legacy holders would do,
they are going to start paying.  In a situation where a small group
is sitting on the vast majority of some resource that the majority
needs to have, the small group always loses.  If not legally, by
revolution.  Meaning in this case that if the legacy holders were
to attempt to hold on to large tracts of unused IPv4, they would
lose, despite the legalities.  It's just too valuable.  In human
endeavor, laws are always bent by the rich to suit their needs, and
the majority has the gold, in this case.

By contast if the answer to #1 is NO, then the movers and shakers
are not going to pay any attention to the legacy holders holdings.
They are going to be frying bigger fish.

I have seen conflicting responses on this forum as to whether the
answer to #1 is yes or no.

Ultimately, though, whether unused legacy IPv4 could stave off IPv6
is a moot issue - IPv6 is eventually going to be on the Internet.
If it is like every other technological advance, it will displace
IPv4 in short order on the backbone - probably much shorter than
anyone believes.  And once IPv6 reaches the tipping point, then
the operators on the backbone are going to stop routing IPv4.
People don't seem to understand how easy it is for a network that
is 1000 miles away from you, is not directly connected to either you
or your upstreams, and that you have absolutely no control over,
can make an arbitrary decision that will royally screw you over.
Once IPv4 runout happens, no responsible network admin anywhere
will be able to make the assumption that IPv4 will be completely
globally routable - and the threat that one day that admin is
going to pick up the phone and take a call from a customer that
is screaming because they can't reach some website or other that
has a path that happens to go through Wonkulating Grokulating
network that has decided they are done routing IPv4, that will
spur IPv6 switchover.

The WIPO may have made it so that domain names are now considered
trademarkable - so that if I decide to start using someone
else's domain name, that I can get sued.  But it is preposterous
to think that WIPO or any other group in the UN can force integers
to become trademarkable property.  If they could, someone
would have trademarked the number "666" and be making a mint.
Without IPv4 having any kind of legal standing, there is no way
to compel a network operator to route it.

And as soon as a few people start abandoning IPv4 for real, that
suddenly commences the beginning of a surplus of IPv4 that will
instantly suck all value out of any legacy holder's assignments.

So in summary, I find the "not paying fair share" calls to be
specious.  As I've said, this is a self-healing issue and the
ONLY thing that would possibly justify further investigation would
be if the answer to question #1 were YES, and then we would have
to decide what the answer to #2 is.

Ted


From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 11:30:23 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:30:23 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081530210.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710081530210.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <4447B4CA-78D7-47A1-9C47-EB0C444F8DFF@mia.net>


On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Dean Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ARIN has an obligation to honor those government agreements.   
>>> ARIN has
>>> honored those agreements and ARIN's obligations under those  
>>> agreements
>>> for more than 10 years.
>>>
>>
>> Understood...
>>
>> So who has the "obligation" to pay for this?
>
> ARIN has that obligation.

Ok, that answers my question.. WE pay for it, "WE"  being, ARIN, ie.,  
the members..

> Just like the private toll company that has
> to maintain the road in return for the opportunity to collect tolls,

Toll roads rarely if ever funnel moneys collected directly to  
maintaining the roadway ;-)

> likewise ARIN the obligation to maintain the government records in
> return for the privilege and opportunity to collect tolls on new
> delegations.

I'm not referring to government records.. I am referring to the  
maintaining of legacy IP space holders, which are NOT governmental  
bodies.

> Internet Legacy's are no different from legacy underground
> cable rights that pre-dated the toll company.  The toll company may  
> have
> to store and maintain those records, too.

The difference is, members are paying for the "legacy's".   Many of  
us take issue with that.
>
> What ARIN is proposing is kind of like the toll road operator saying
> (after 11 years) that it doesn't want to maintain the roads  
> anymore; it
> will only maintain the toll booths, since only the toll booths produce
> revenue, and the roads are just an expense outside the toll  
> booths.  It
> says this even though for 11 years, it maintained the roads and it was
> always understood that it had to maintain the roads.  Not only  
> that, but
> it was the third such toll operator, and each of the prior operators
> also maintained the roads and understood that was required of them.

Your toll road example is not working for me... Without digressing, a  
toll is a tax... Once a tax is in place, it is never removed.. This  
is evidenced by the Tri-State Toll Way system that was supposed to be  
in operation for 13 years.... It's still collecting the tax...

In any event, in your Toll Road example.. EVERYONE that uses the TOLL  
road pays... There are no "LEGACY" truck drivers, or "LEGACY"  
commuters that are exempt from the TOLLS.. Using your example,  
EVERYONE should pay.
>
> Not only all this, but ARIN also has saved up 7 years of operating
> capital, and as a result, ARIN stains non-profit status to have such
> continuous long term profit. It is plainly collecting too much on too
> little, with (some say) too much staff travel expense.

If that is the case, than perhaps there should be a fee reduction?   
If there is such a surplus, it certainly explains that useless comic  
book I received...

Personally, to me, the first piece of correspondence and or material  
I ever receive from ARIN over the years turns out to be a comic  
book... We all had a good laugh here anyway...

Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 12:07:06 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:07:06 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <52e4da70020adb486425c8c1d1117114470a8f1b@jcc.com>
References: <52e4da70020adb486425c8c1d1117114470a8f1b@jcc.com>
Message-ID: <319C9814-69F6-4B98-A46C-B308A9CD473D@mia.net>


On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote:
>>
>>
>> So who has the "obligation" to pay for this?
>>
>
> Who has an "obligation" to pay for what?

Legacy IP space holders maintenance fees.
>
> As a legacy address holder (our /24 was allocated in 1991), I've  
> mostly
> ignored ARIN, except for a couple of POC updates.
>
That's comforting to know.


> Until last spring when I received an invitation to join the Public
> Policy Mailing List, I had received no communication from ARIN outside
> of the POC updates. So, ARIN has mostly ignored me.

It works both ways.. You said you've mostly ignored ARIN...
>
> Much of the discussion of the "Counsel statement on Legacy  
> assignments"
> assumes that legacy address holders have not been paying their fair
> share of something.  However, I have never received any communication
> from ARIN inviting me to pay for something relative my legacy address.

And that is what we are all discussing..    Many of us feel everyone  
should have to pay.  Legacy or not...
>
> So, as far as I can tell, I've paid everything that ARIN has ever  
> asked.

You just said you have not.
>
> Take a look at the ARIN web page.  What there gives information to
> legacy address holders on what and why they should pay ARIN?

The fee schedule looks pretty clear to me..
>
> So, before spending a lot of time discussing whether or not ARIN  
> has the
> legal or moral right to stop providing services to legacy address
> holders who haven't done something, ARIN needs to define what it wants
> from legacy address holders and put in place the process and
> documentation to allow legacy address holders to respond.
>
>
I do not think anyone here is suggesting that ARIN should stop  
providing services for legacy holders.  What we are suggesting is  
that you pay for these services.  I really do not think a definition  
is required.. All that should be required is that EVERY SINGLE ARIN  
member that receives IP space, should pay exactly the same amount as  
per the fee schedule, NO EXCEPTIONS..

At least that is my take on the general consensus.

Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 12:11:16 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:11:16 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <470B43BC.4010903@Cleven.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710082012280.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net>
	<470B43BC.4010903@Cleven.com>
Message-ID: <9FAFF282-E127-4BEB-BA92-4E4049C88FB5@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Ron Cleven wrote:

>                    Legacy's have as much right to monetize
>                    these resources as you do.
>
> Wow!  So THIS is what this discussion is about?  MIT, et al, are  
> going to start selling all the IPV4 space they aren't using?  Are  
> they going to sell them off to individuals or back to ARIN?

That's funny, I thought you did not buy IP space.  How can one sell  
something that is neither owned nor bought?
>


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From woody at pch.net  Tue Oct  9 12:10:33 2007
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <319C9814-69F6-4B98-A46C-B308A9CD473D@mia.net>
References: <52e4da70020adb486425c8c1d1117114470a8f1b@jcc.com>
	<319C9814-69F6-4B98-A46C-B308A9CD473D@mia.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0710090909160.22092@paixhost.pch.net>

    > > Who has an "obligation" to pay for what?
    > 
    > Legacy IP space holders maintenance fees.

Fees are a "what" while services are a "for what."  The question was what 
was proposed to be paid _for_, not what was proposed to be _paid_.  
Whatever's paid is by definition a fee.

                                -Bill



From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Tue Oct  9 13:06:46 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:06:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOGEBIHEAA.support@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385B20@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

Excellent comments, very helpful! 

> 1) Please avoid use of temporary fee changes where possible.  
> Such as a waiver that is set to expire in a year unless 
> renewed by the board, etc.
> The ISP business is a long-term planning game, and if I'm 
> planning a deployment I don't want to have to worry about a 
> waiver not being renewed.

Yes, we heard this comment, and that is why we set up the
planned waiver for the next several years.  It's also part
of the reason we have been reluctant to tinker with fees
in the past.

> 2) I disagree with the "fee per single IP" approach. 
> . . .
> 3) The top pricing tier for blocks in ARIN should not be 
> occupied by more than a dozen or so organizations. 

Should it be a bell curve distribution?  Half-bell?  Linear?
In other words, if there are about 3000 members, should the 
distribution be (for XXL/XL/L/M/S) 15/500/2000/500/15 or
15/100/250/600/2000 or 15/300/600/900/1200?

I'll mention that there's a new XXL size category in IPv6,
that doesn't exist in IPv4.

> 4) If doing this brings in so much extra money that ARIN is 
> rolling in cash it doesen't need then let's lower fees on ALL 
> tiers.  Note that I am not really comfortable with ARIN 
> running with lean cash reserves 

We have a reserve that would let us operate for well over a
year with no additional income.  We can build a reserve
enough to cover part of our expenses from the income.
 
> 5) I disagree with month to month billing.  
> 
> I think ARIN's staff should have the flexibility to work out 
> payment plans with organizations that suddenly find 
> themselves caught on a yearly bill 

> Ted


Thank you for making clear, well-considered suggestions.
I really appreciate you taking the time to write up your
perspective.

Lee 


From mike at mathbox.com  Tue Oct  9 13:37:19 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:37:19 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385B20@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Howard, W. Lee
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:07 PM
> To: Internet Partners, Inc. Tech Support; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
> 
> Excellent comments, very helpful! 
> 
> > 1) Please avoid use of temporary fee changes where possible.  
> > Such as a waiver that is set to expire in a year unless 
> > renewed by the board, etc.
> > The ISP business is a long-term planning game, and if I'm 
> > planning a deployment I don't want to have to worry about a 
> > waiver not being renewed.
> 
> Yes, we heard this comment, and that is why we set up the
> planned waiver for the next several years.  It's also part
> of the reason we have been reluctant to tinker with fees
> in the past.
> 
> > 2) I disagree with the "fee per single IP" approach. 

Would you agree with a fee per /24?

> > . . .
> > 3) The top pricing tier for blocks in ARIN should not be 
> > occupied by more than a dozen or so organizations. 
> 
> Should it be a bell curve distribution?  Half-bell?  Linear?
> In other words, if there are about 3000 members, should the 
> distribution be (for XXL/XL/L/M/S) 15/500/2000/500/15 or
> 15/100/250/600/2000 or 15/300/600/900/1200?

Why in the world should anyone in ARIN community accept the current fee
structure or a bell curve fee structure.

I would remind everyone of this excerpt from a message from Stephen Sprunk
on 5/31/07:

<Begin Excerpt>
Current stats per ARIN Member Services:
 
            # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8
 
(The last column didn't come from ARIN, but I calculated it from the fee
schedule.)
<End Excerpt>

Note that 73 Xtra Large members control over 79 percent of ARIN allocated IP
space and they pay 15.8 percent of the allocation fees. There are several
obvious issues here, including conservation and fair-play. I am surprised
that 2300 victims do not have anything to say on the issue.

> 
> I'll mention that there's a new XXL size category in IPv6,
> that doesn't exist in IPv4.
> 
> > 4) If doing this brings in so much extra money that ARIN is 
> > rolling in cash it doesen't need then let's lower fees on ALL 
> > tiers.  Note that I am not really comfortable with ARIN 
> > running with lean cash reserves 
> 
> We have a reserve that would let us operate for well over a
> year with no additional income.  We can build a reserve
> enough to cover part of our expenses from the income.
>  
> > 5) I disagree with month to month billing.  
> > 
> > I think ARIN's staff should have the flexibility to work out 
> > payment plans with organizations that suddenly find 
> > themselves caught on a yearly bill 
> 
> > Ted
> 
> 
> Thank you for making clear, well-considered suggestions.
> I really appreciate you taking the time to write up your
> perspective.
> 
> Lee 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)




From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 13:52:22 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:52:22 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
References: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <2918FB1A-7D5D-4AB3-B133-08B7CF665498@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:

>> -----
> I would remind everyone of this excerpt from a message from Stephen  
> Sprunk
> on 5/31/07:
>
> <Begin Excerpt>
> Current stats per ARIN Member Services:
>
>             # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
> Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
> Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
> Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
> Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
> Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8
>
> (The last column didn't come from ARIN, but I calculated it from  
> the fee
> schedule.)
> <End Excerpt>
>
> Note that 73 Xtra Large members control over 79 percent of ARIN  
> allocated IP
> space and they pay 15.8 percent of the allocation fees.

You've kinda explained the federal tax system in a nut-shell... Only  
thing is, this is working in reverse...

> There are several
> obvious issues here, including conservation and fair-play. I am  
> surprised
> that 2300 victims do not have anything to say on the issue.

I would say I am concerned, not surprised...   If ARIN is made up of  
its members and members do not contribute to the discussion, I guess  
we have nothing to complain about...




Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From woody at pch.net  Tue Oct  9 13:52:48 2007
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
References: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0710091049400.7596@paixhost.pch.net>

      On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:

    >             # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
    > Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
    > Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
    > Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
    > Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
    > Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8
    > 
    > Note that 73 Xtra Large members control over 79 percent of ARIN allocated IP
    > space and they pay 15.8 percent of the allocation fees. 

That does indeed seem to me to be a notable fact.

    > I am surprised
    > that 2300 victims do not have anything to say on the issue.

I'm not sure that I would concur with your characterization of them as 
"victims," since it's precisely their failure to participate in the 
process which has resulted in this situation.

I can only remind you all that ARIN is a bottom-up organization, not a top 
down one.  There is no class of members who are victims, only classes of 
members who fail to participate.

On the Internet, the rules are made by by the people who show up.

                                -Bill



From owen at delong.com  Tue Oct  9 13:54:59 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:54:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
References: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <6EBCB675-294E-44DF-8402-3218899B8063@delong.com>

>>
>> Should it be a bell curve distribution?  Half-bell?  Linear?
>> In other words, if there are about 3000 members, should the
>> distribution be (for XXL/XL/L/M/S) 15/500/2000/500/15 or
>> 15/100/250/600/2000 or 15/300/600/900/1200?
>
> Why in the world should anyone in ARIN community accept the current  
> fee
> structure or a bell curve fee structure.
>
> I would remind everyone of this excerpt from a message from Stephen  
> Sprunk
> on 5/31/07:
>
> <Begin Excerpt>
> Current stats per ARIN Member Services:
>
>             # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
> Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
> Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
> Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
> Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
> Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8
>
> (The last column didn't come from ARIN, but I calculated it from  
> the fee
> schedule.)
> <End Excerpt>
>
Your calculation leaves out a couple of factors, and, if you're going to
put a % fees amount up, you should also put up a % costs column.
Indeed, if it were possible for ARIN to develop those two columns,
I think it would be interesting to see the data.  However, I suspect
that ARIN does not track the exact time spent on each request, so, it
would probably be hard to track that number.

I think that the argument for a flat fee structure based on IP  
utilization
is no more valid than the argument for a flat membership fee.
After all, theoretically, people are paying for membership in the
organization and for registration services, not for the amount of space
they receive.  Most membership organizations have a single annual
membership fee.  The ones that do not, usually have something
very close to a bell-curve similar to that of ARIN.  For example, they
may have student, youth, individual, family, corporate, sponsor, and
other membership categories at different prices.  Generally, the higher
you go on the pricing structure, the fewer members you find, although
you also tend to find relatively few members in the very bottom  
categories
as well.  Most members tend to be found in the middle area, much
like ARIN.


> Note that 73 Xtra Large members control over 79 percent of ARIN  
> allocated IP
> space and they pay 15.8 percent of the allocation fees. There are  
> several
> obvious issues here, including conservation and fair-play. I am  
> surprised
> that 2300 victims do not have anything to say on the issue.
>
Looking at this from a different perspective, why should those 73  
members
have to subsidize so much of the cost of those other 2300 members?
Why should 2.8% of the members pay 8 times as much as the other
97.2% of the membership?

The current fee structure is an effort to balance the discrepancies  
on both
sides of this equation.  It's a little bit a case of large+ members
subsidizing the membership costs of the smaller ones based on increasing
prices for greater consumption, and, a little bit a case of the largest
consumers receiving some level of volume discount.

Lee, what would the fee per year look like if ARIN charged a single flat
fee to all subscriber members (LIR/ISP members)?

Also, Lee, is it possible to get some idea of what percentage of ARIN's
annual costs are fixed and what percentage are incremental per
allocation.  Finally, would it be possible to get the average number
of allocations and the average number of email/telephone interactions
per year for each size category (I suspect the latter is more Leslie's
domain).

Thanks,

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071009/151579e6/attachment.html>

From Keith at jcc.com  Tue Oct  9 14:06:54 2007
From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:06:54 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
Message-ID: <5ff2542c6ca240f76e44b7dcd633c801470bc350@jcc.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy 
> Anthony Kinsey
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:07 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on 
> Legacy assignments?
> 

> >
> > Much of the discussion of the "Counsel statement on Legacy  
> > assignments"
> > assumes that legacy address holders have not been paying their fair
> > share of something.  However, I have never received any 
> communication
> > from ARIN inviting me to pay for something relative my 
> legacy address.
> 
> And that is what we are all discussing..    Many of us feel everyone  
> should have to pay.  Legacy or not...

Actually, most of the conversations boil down to "lets hang the legacy
address holders high because they have not paid their fair share."  My
point is that ARIN has never asked legacy address holders to pay.

> >
> > So, as far as I can tell, I've paid everything that ARIN has ever  
> > asked.
> 
> You just said you have not.

ARIN has never asked for anything, so I've never paid anything.
Therefore, I've paid everything that ARIN has ever asked.

> >
> > Take a look at the ARIN web page.  What there gives information to
> > legacy address holders on what and why they should pay ARIN?
> 
> The fee schedule looks pretty clear to me..

The fee schedule is almost clear.  However, there are no directions
telling me how to go about asking ARIN to send me a bill for the legacy
address range I have.  

> >
> > So, before spending a lot of time discussing whether or not ARIN  
> > has the
> > legal or moral right to stop providing services to legacy address
> > holders who haven't done something, ARIN needs to define 
> what it wants
> > from legacy address holders and put in place the process and
> > documentation to allow legacy address holders to respond.
> >
> >
> I do not think anyone here is suggesting that ARIN should stop  
> providing services for legacy holders.  What we are suggesting is  
> that you pay for these services.  

Actually, almost everytime this topic has come up in the last 5-6
months, it has devolved into how to deny services to legacy holders
because they haven't signed an RSA or paid anything.

My point is that there is not yet a process in place (or if there is, it
is not documented on the web page) for a legacy address holder to sign
an RSA and pay fees for existing address space. 

Keith


______________________________________________________________
 
Keith W. Hare                     JCC Consulting, Inc.
keith at jcc.com                     600 Newark Road
Phone: 740-587-0157               P.O. Box 381
Fax: 740-587-0163                 Granville, Ohio 43023
http://www.jcc.com                USA
______________________________________________________________
 



From woody at pch.net  Tue Oct  9 14:17:34 2007
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:17:34 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <6EBCB675-294E-44DF-8402-3218899B8063@delong.com>
References: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
	<6EBCB675-294E-44DF-8402-3218899B8063@delong.com>
Message-ID: <7E94EA4D-FF2B-4080-9962-830887DB0D5D@pch.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Lee, is it possible to get some idea of what percentage of ARIN's
> annual costs are fixed and what percentage are incremental per
> allocation.

This is something I've chatted with Lee and others about, and the  
consensus has been that that's a pretty gray area.  Not because the  
numbers aren't available; they are, in spades...  But because it's  
almost completely subjective as to which would be amortized per  
allocation, and which would be counted as overhead.

The reason I've been asking the same question you are, Owen, is  
because I'd like to see ARIN move toward a fee model wherein all  
overhead costs, like the cost of maintaining whois, maintaining the  
in-addr, holding meetings, keeping the office doors open, et cetera,  
would be paid for from an endowment, while all transactional costs,  
like the cost of an IP analyst responding to a request for an AS  
number, would be billed to the recipient of the service, at cost.

That would get completely away from the misimpression that there's a  
per-IP-address cost, and make the cost of ARIN's services, regardless  
of whether they're provided to a small member, a large member, an end- 
user, or a legacy-holder, completely fair and transparent.

Or at least, that's my take on what would be fair.

Anybody have any thoughts on that?

                                 -Bill



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071009/b6dc4580/attachment.sig>

From mike at mathbox.com  Tue Oct  9 14:21:44 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:21:44 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <6EBCB675-294E-44DF-8402-3218899B8063@delong.com>
Message-ID: <20071009142131.SM01552@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:55 PM
> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox
> Cc: 'Howard, W. Lee'; 'Internet Partners, Inc. Tech Support'; 
> arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: ARIN Fee discussion
> 
> 
> 		Should it be a bell curve distribution?  
> Half-bell?  Linear?
> 		In other words, if there are about 3000 
> members, should the 
> 		distribution be (for XXL/XL/L/M/S) 15/500/2000/500/15 or
> 		15/100/250/600/2000 or 15/300/600/900/1200?
> 
> 
> 	Why in the world should anyone in ARIN community accept 
> the current fee
> 	structure or a bell curve fee structure.
> 
> 	I would remind everyone of this excerpt from a message 
> from Stephen Sprunk
> 	on 5/31/07:
> 
> 	<Begin Excerpt>
> 	Current stats per ARIN Member Services:
> 	
> 	
> 	            # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
> 	Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
> 	Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
> 	Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
> 	Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
> 	Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8
> 	
> 	
> 	(The last column didn't come from ARIN, but I 
> calculated it from the fee
> 	schedule.)
> 	<End Excerpt>
> 
> 
> Your calculation leaves out a couple of factors, and, if 
> you're going to
> put a % fees amount up, you should also put up a % costs column.
> Indeed, if it were possible for ARIN to develop those two columns,
> I think it would be interesting to see the data.  However, I suspect
> that ARIN does not track the exact time spent on each request, so, it
> would probably be hard to track that number.
> 
> I think that the argument for a flat fee structure based on 
> IP utilization
> is no more valid than the argument for a flat membership fee.
> After all, theoretically, people are paying for membership in the
> organization and for registration services, not for the 
> amount of space
> they receive.  Most membership organizations have a single annual
> membership fee.  The ones that do not, usually have something
> very close to a bell-curve similar to that of ARIN.  For example, they
> may have student, youth, individual, family, corporate, sponsor, and
> other membership categories at different prices.  Generally, 
> the higher
> you go on the pricing structure, the fewer members you find, although
> you also tend to find relatively few members in the very 
> bottom categories
> as well.  Most members tend to be found in the middle area, much
> like ARIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Note that 73 Xtra Large members control over 79 percent 
> of ARIN allocated IP
> 	space and they pay 15.8 percent of the allocation fees. 
> There are several
> 	obvious issues here, including conservation and 
> fair-play. I am surprised
> 	that 2300 victims do not have anything to say on the issue.
> 
> 
> Looking at this from a different perspective, why should 
> those 73 members
> have to subsidize so much of the cost of those other 2300 members?
> Why should 2.8% of the members pay 8 times as much as the other
> 97.2% of the membership?
> 
> The current fee structure is an effort to balance the 
> discrepancies on both
> sides of this equation.  It's a little bit a case of large+ members
> subsidizing the membership costs of the smaller ones based on 
> increasing
> prices for greater consumption, and, a little bit a case of 
> the largest
> consumers receiving some level of volume discount.
> 
> Lee, what would the fee per year look like if ARIN charged a 
> single flat
> fee to all subscriber members (LIR/ISP members)?
> 
> Also, Lee, is it possible to get some idea of what percentage 
> of ARIN's
> annual costs are fixed and what percentage are incremental per
> allocation.  Finally, would it be possible to get the average number
> of allocations and the average number of email/telephone interactions
> per year for each size category (I suspect the latter is more Leslie's
> domain).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Owen

The thing that all of your arguments ignore is that there is no relationship
between the fees imposed and the community resources consumed. The resources
belong to the community, not 2.8% of the community.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From arin at trust.idiom.com  Tue Oct  9 14:27:01 2007
From: arin at trust.idiom.com (David Muir Sharnoff)
Date: Tue,  9 Oct 2007 11:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
References: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
	<Pine.SOC.4.61.0710091049400.7596@paixhost.pch.net>
Message-ID: <20071009182701.CD3A61265F4@idiom.com>

* I can only remind you all that ARIN is a bottom-up organization, not a top 
* down one.  There is no class of members who are victims, only classes of 
* members who fail to participate.

The cost of meaningfull participation in ARIN exceeds one year's tithe.   

Until this discussion came along, it seemed the only meaningful way
to participate in ARIN was to go to one of the ARIN meetings or to
run for one of ARINs director slots.  For most of us, attending one
of the ARIN meetings would cost more than just paying the yearly
fee.  The most we could hope to gain by participating is less than
the cost of participating.  Generally, only organizations big enough
to absorb the costs of participating actually participate.  That
usually ends up being the same thing as top-down.

Every year, I read of the list of candidates and look for one that 
has a statement saying something like: "The fees are too high and I will
lower them" or "the fees are disproportionate and I will make the
large users pay more."   So far there has been no such candidate.

The only other thing that ARIN could do to make my life easier would
be to publish a better rwhois daemon or an easier API for changing
SWIP/POC delegations.

Hopefully this discussion we're having now will result in lower fees
or rebates for most of us.

-Dave


From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 14:31:22 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:31:22 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] Typo in Template
Message-ID: <052D1DFB-81D4-4E2A-8818-83F53258CA09@mia.net>

Hey guys, who would I forward a typo onto.  I noticed the following  
typo in the re-assign SWIP template located here: http://www.arin.net/ 
registration/templates/reassign-detailed.txt

It is item 05 of the instructions:


05. Indicate the state or province of the customer receiving
     the ressignment.


"ressignment"  should be: "reassignment"



Thank you


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 14:42:39 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:42:39 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <5ff2542c6ca240f76e44b7dcd633c801470bc353@jcc.com>
References: <5ff2542c6ca240f76e44b7dcd633c801470bc353@jcc.com>
Message-ID: <F37C9FE8-28FD-438D-A4FB-A011732009DC@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>> Anthony Kinsey
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:07 PM
>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on
>> Legacy assignments?
>>
>
>>>
>>> Much of the discussion of the "Counsel statement on Legacy
>>> assignments"
>>> assumes that legacy address holders have not been paying their fair
>>> share of something.  However, I have never received any
>> communication
>>> from ARIN inviting me to pay for something relative my
>> legacy address.
>>
>> And that is what we are all discussing..    Many of us feel everyone
>> should have to pay.  Legacy or not...
>
> Actually, most of the conversations boil down to "lets hang the legacy
> address holders high because they have not paid their fair share."  My
> point is that ARIN has never asked legacy address holders to pay.
>

Agreed.. I understand where you are coming from.. I'm not asking  
anyone to be punished for policy that was in place previously.. All I  
am suggesting is that legacy holders now be required to pay.. You may  
find many of them returning space that they do not use as a result.
>
> ARIN has never asked for anything, so I've never paid anything.
> Therefore, I've paid everything that ARIN has ever asked.

Again, understood..
>
>>>
>
> The fee schedule is almost clear.  However, there are no directions
> telling me how to go about asking ARIN to send me a bill for the  
> legacy
> address range I have.

I doubt anyone would want to proactively ask for a bill that no one  
is even sure is valid... It's kinda hard to pay for something without  
an invoice, as you have indicated.  Until ARIN actually requests  
payment, like you said, you have no reason to pay.
>>>
>
> Actually, almost everytime this topic has come up in the last 5-6
> months, it has devolved into how to deny services to legacy holders
> because they haven't signed an RSA or paid anything.

Argh.. I don't feel this is the solution... The solution is to  
establish a policy where by a fee schedule is applied to current  
legacy holders starting at X.. Not suggesting denying services,  
shutting them down, or doing this proactively, just beginning at some  
point, say Jan 1.
>
> My point is that there is not yet a process in place (or if there  
> is, it
> is not documented on the web page) for a legacy address holder to sign
> an RSA and pay fees for existing address space.

Perhaps that is something that the board needs to establish/focus on  
moving forward.


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Tue Oct  9 14:49:46 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:49:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710051626000.4144-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385C4E@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

> ARIN already has such a huge surplus that it strains 
> non-profit status to have such profit: ARIN can now operate 
> for something like 7 years with no further income.  


ARIN's published budget for 2007 projects about
$10,312,000 in expenses.
http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html

ARIN's unrestricted net assets as of December 31, 2006 
were $20,413,323.
http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual/2006_audited_financials.pd
f


I routinely check with ARIN's financial and legal advisors
on ARIN's not-for-profit status, and I believe it is not
under strain.

Lee


From mike at mathbox.com  Tue Oct  9 14:55:25 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:55:25 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <6EBCB675-294E-44DF-8402-3218899B8063@delong.com>
Message-ID: <200710091455153.SM02356@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:55 PM
> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox
> Cc: 'Howard, W. Lee'; 'Internet Partners, Inc. Tech Support'; 
> arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: ARIN Fee discussion
> 
> 
> 		Should it be a bell curve distribution?  
> Half-bell?  Linear?
> 		In other words, if there are about 3000 
> members, should the 
> 		distribution be (for XXL/XL/L/M/S) 15/500/2000/500/15 or
> 		15/100/250/600/2000 or 15/300/600/900/1200?
> 
> 
> 	Why in the world should anyone in ARIN community accept 
> the current fee
> 	structure or a bell curve fee structure.
> 
> 	I would remind everyone of this excerpt from a message 
> from Stephen Sprunk
> 	on 5/31/07:
> 
> 	<Begin Excerpt>
> 	Current stats per ARIN Member Services:
> 	
> 	
> 	            # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
> 	Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
> 	Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
> 	Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
> 	Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
> 	Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8
> 	
> 	
> 	(The last column didn't come from ARIN, but I 
> calculated it from the fee
> 	schedule.)
> 	<End Excerpt>
> 
> 
> Your calculation leaves out a couple of factors, and, if 
> you're going to
> put a % fees amount up, you should also put up a % costs column.
> Indeed, if it were possible for ARIN to develop those two columns,
> I think it would be interesting to see the data.  However, I suspect
> that ARIN does not track the exact time spent on each request, so, it
> would probably be hard to track that number.
> 
> I think that the argument for a flat fee structure based on 
> IP utilization
> is no more valid than the argument for a flat membership fee.
> After all, theoretically, people are paying for membership in the
> organization and for registration services, not for the 
> amount of space
> they receive.  Most membership organizations have a single annual
> membership fee.  The ones that do not, usually have something
> very close to a bell-curve similar to that of ARIN.  For example, they
> may have student, youth, individual, family, corporate, sponsor, and
> other membership categories at different prices.  Generally, 
> the higher
> you go on the pricing structure, the fewer members you find, although
> you also tend to find relatively few members in the very 
> bottom categories
> as well.  Most members tend to be found in the middle area, much
> like ARIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 	Note that 73 Xtra Large members control over 79 percent 
> of ARIN allocated IP
> 	space and they pay 15.8 percent of the allocation fees. 
> There are several
> 	obvious issues here, including conservation and 
> fair-play. I am surprised
> 	that 2300 victims do not have anything to say on the issue.
> 
> 
> Looking at this from a different perspective, why should 
> those 73 members
> have to subsidize so much of the cost of those other 2300 members?
> Why should 2.8% of the members pay 8 times as much as the other
> 97.2% of the membership?
> 
> The current fee structure is an effort to balance the 
> discrepancies on both
> sides of this equation.  It's a little bit a case of large+ members
> subsidizing the membership costs of the smaller ones based on 
> increasing
> prices for greater consumption, and, a little bit a case of 
> the largest
> consumers receiving some level of volume discount.
> 
> Lee, what would the fee per year look like if ARIN charged a 
> single flat
> fee to all subscriber members (LIR/ISP members)?
> 
> Also, Lee, is it possible to get some idea of what percentage 
> of ARIN's
> annual costs are fixed and what percentage are incremental per
> allocation.  Finally, would it be possible to get the average number
> of allocations and the average number of email/telephone interactions
> per year for each size category (I suspect the latter is more Leslie's
> domain).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Owen

Owen,

          # Members    Fee Level      Fee $
Xtra Small   390     *      1250    487,500
Small       1571     *      2250  3,534,750
Medium       518     *      4500  2,331,000
Large         71     *      9000    639,000
Xtra Large    73     *     18000  1,314,000
                                  ---------
Total                             8,306,250
2007 Budget                      10,312,000


Based the numbers, 15.8% of the allocation income translates to 12.7% of
budgeted costs seems to refute that those 73 members are subsidizing
anything. It would appear that all of the other members are subsidizing
those 73.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 14:58:32 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:58:32 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <20071009182701.CD3A61265F4@idiom.com>
References: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
	<Pine.SOC.4.61.0710091049400.7596@paixhost.pch.net>
	<20071009182701.CD3A61265F4@idiom.com>
Message-ID: <06E79A4D-5741-4FB3-B136-3E72A03CACC1@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:27 PM, David Muir Sharnoff wrote:

> * I can only remind you all that ARIN is a bottom-up organization,  
> not a top
> * down one.  There is no class of members who are victims, only  
> classes of
> * members who fail to participate.
>
> The cost of meaningfull participation in ARIN exceeds one year's  
> tithe.
>
> Until this discussion came along, it seemed the only meaningful way
> to participate in ARIN was to go to one of the ARIN meetings or to
> run for one of ARINs director slots.  For most of us, attending one
> of the ARIN meetings would cost more than just paying the yearly
> fee.  The most we could hope to gain by participating is less than
> the cost of participating.  Generally, only organizations big enough
> to absorb the costs of participating actually participate.  That
> usually ends up being the same thing as top-down.

I agree completely, hence one of the reasons I felt compelled to run  
for a position on the board.  It is very difficult to actively  
participate in policy that I am not involved in on a daily basis.   
It's not like all of us sit around reading the ARIN web site daily...  
I am sure many of us have more time consuming areas of importance in  
our daily work lives.. That said, it is rather easy to be uninformed  
or ignorant to goings on...  I'm sure there are a great many people  
who don't even care to participate in the discussion.. After all,  
once you have what you need, you just pay a fee each year and what  
else do you really need from ARIN?  The low participation rate is  
evidenced by the number of people on this discussion list actually  
took the time to write "unsubscribe" and send it back to the list...   
That in and of itself is a bit disturbing, given the technical nature  
of many on this list.

Many do not realize that ARIN is from the bottom-up, and as such,  
fail to participate.
>
> Every year, I read of the list of candidates and look for one that
> has a statement saying something like: "The fees are too high and I  
> will
> lower them" or "the fees are disproportionate and I will make the
> large users pay more."   So far there has been no such candidate.

Actually I ran last time around, and that is one of the things I said  
I would like to be a part of doing, ie., lowering fees.
>
> The only other thing that ARIN could do to make my life easier would
> be to publish a better rwhois daemon or an easier API for changing
> SWIP/POC delegations.

I will have to admit while the SWIP/POC is a PITA, and archaic, by  
modern standards... it is still quite reliable..   It would be nice  
to leave the InterNIC templating system back in  the 90's, but  
something tells me, making that more easy/modern, will add a whole  
new set of problems.  I'd prefer to leave well enough alone with that  
system... ;-)
>
> Hopefully this discussion we're having now will result in lower fees
> or rebates for most of us.
>
You and me both Dave.. ;-)

Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 14:59:58 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:59:58 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385C4E@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385C4E@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <3A309EBA-8AFE-4656-995E-69CD45F0E94E@mia.net>

That certainly does not seem like 7 years of operating expenses in  
surplus... Where did that number come from?

On Oct 9, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Howard, W. Lee wrote:

>> ARIN already has such a huge surplus that it strains
>> non-profit status to have such profit: ARIN can now operate
>> for something like 7 years with no further income.
>
>
> ARIN's published budget for 2007 projects about
> $10,312,000 in expenses.
> http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
>
> ARIN's unrestricted net assets as of December 31, 2006
> were $20,413,323.
> http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual/ 
> 2006_audited_financials.pd
> f
>
>
> I routinely check with ARIN's financial and legal advisors
> on ARIN's not-for-profit status, and I believe it is not
> under strain.
>
> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the  
> ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact  
> the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From mike at mathbox.com  Tue Oct  9 14:59:52 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:59:52 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385C4E@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <200710091459405.SM03316@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Howard, W. Lee
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:50 PM
> To: Dean Anderson; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel 
> statement on Legacy assignments?
> 
> > ARIN already has such a huge surplus that it strains 
> > non-profit status to have such profit: ARIN can now operate 
> > for something like 7 years with no further income.  
> 
> 
> ARIN's published budget for 2007 projects about
> $10,312,000 in expenses.
> http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
> 
> ARIN's unrestricted net assets as of December 31, 2006 
> were $20,413,323.
> http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual/2006_audited_fin
> ancials.pd
> f

That must be where all the subsidization from 73 members is going. :)

> 
> 
> I routinely check with ARIN's financial and legal advisors
> on ARIN's not-for-profit status, and I believe it is not
> under strain.
> 
> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)




From owen at delong.com  Tue Oct  9 15:26:53 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:26:53 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <20071009142131.SM01552@mikesplace>
References: <20071009142131.SM01552@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <5235FAFF-AE91-4C67-8338-F470EF9B0082@delong.com>

>
> The thing that all of your arguments ignore is that there is no  
> relationship
> between the fees imposed and the community resources consumed. The  
> resources
> belong to the community, not 2.8% of the community.

The thing this argument ignores is that the fees are NOT for the  
resources.
They are for the administration of the resources.

Just like when a telephone company goes to NANPA for a new prefix,  
they do
not buy the prefix.  They pay for the administration to delegate the  
prefix to them.
If you want proof that they didn't buy the prefix, how about the fact  
that any
customer they delegate a number to from that prefix can take said  
number to
another phone company free of charge and without penalty.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Tue Oct  9 16:00:57 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:00:57 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <20071009182701.CD3A61265F4@idiom.com>
References: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
	<Pine.SOC.4.61.0710091049400.7596@paixhost.pch.net>
	<20071009182701.CD3A61265F4@idiom.com>
Message-ID: <4C272675-AD3C-406D-9FBA-C1357CEC22AC@delong.com>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:27 AM, David Muir Sharnoff wrote:

> * I can only remind you all that ARIN is a bottom-up organization,  
> not a top
> * down one.  There is no class of members who are victims, only  
> classes of
> * members who fail to participate.
>
> The cost of meaningfull participation in ARIN exceeds one year's  
> tithe.
>
> Until this discussion came along, it seemed the only meaningful way
> to participate in ARIN was to go to one of the ARIN meetings or to
> run for one of ARINs director slots.  For most of us, attending one
> of the ARIN meetings would cost more than just paying the yearly
> fee.  The most we could hope to gain by participating is less than
> the cost of participating.  Generally, only organizations big enough
> to absorb the costs of participating actually participate.  That
> usually ends up being the same thing as top-down.
>
I was participating in ARIN meaningfully well before I attended a  
members
meeting or ran for AC.  The ARIN PPML has been an effective method
of participating in ARIN for many years now.  The PPML is for all  
intents
and purposes absolutely free. (You pay the cost of sending and receiving
your own emails, but, I think we can call that effectively free.)

My initial participation in ARIN was as an individual representative of
an end-user organization consisting of not more than 4 people.  My
total investment in said participation was $100/year plus $0 additional
costs to support my email (vs. what I would spend to do other internet
access anyway).  If you want to count my entire internet costs that
year, my annual cost was $1,600, so, not much more than an X-Small
subscriber member's fees.

While the community does not show consensus for some of my ideas
on how things should be, I certainly do not feel that my input has been
ignored or that it has received any less consideration than input from
organizations like Verizon, SPRINT, AT&T, etc.  Indeed, I believe that
more of the policies I have drafted have been adopted than those
drafted by AT&T or Verizon representatives.

The ARIN-DISCUSS mailing list has expanded that ability to facilitate
topics which are not appropriate to PPML and to keep an open
channel for the community (that's right, it's not even limited to
the membership, it's open to the entire community) to communicate
their opinions with each other and with the ARIN BoT, AC, and
staff.

> Every year, I read of the list of candidates and look for one that
> has a statement saying something like: "The fees are too high and I  
> will
> lower them" or "the fees are disproportionate and I will make the
> large users pay more."   So far there has been no such candidate.
>
Are you talking about the BoT candidates or the AC candidates?

The AC candidates can't do anything about fees, so, of course there
would not be one making such a statement.

As for the BoT, frankly, I think that this is the first time there has
been any real discussion of this particular subject.  I don't believe
that ARIN's fees overall are excessive.  I do think that it might make
more sense under the circumstances to make the fee structure
somewhat more topheavy than it currently is (i.e. raise fees on
the large and x-large orgs.), but, I don't think that would lower
the fees as much as you expect for the other orgs.  Let's look at
the math:

Current:
            # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8

>
So... Let's say we changed the fee structure so that we doubled the  
Large
and X-Large fees and distributed the savings evenly to the other  
categories
of membership.

First, the total amount collected under the current structure is:

Size			# Members	Price @		Total Collected
X-Small		  390		 1,250		  487,500
Small			1,571		 2,250		3,534,750
Medium			  518		 4,500		2,331,000
Large			   71		 9,000		  639,000
X-Large		   73		18,000		1,314,000

Total									8,306,250

Now, here's what it would look like if we doubled the fees for
Large and X-Large members:

Size			# Members	Price @		Total Collected
X-Small		  390		   462		  180,180
Small			1,571		 1,462		2,296,802
Medium			  518		 3,712		1,922,816
Large			   71		18,000		1,278,000
X-Large		   73		36,000		2,628,000

Total									8,305,798

The additional amount collected from the 144 members
in those two categories would be 1,953,000.  This
would be divided amongst the 2,479 other members
providing an annual savings to each other member
of approximately $788 each.  The discrepency
of $452 in the total is the result of rounding
the savings UP to 788/member in the smaller
categories.  I think the easiest way to resolve
that would be to increase the medium fee by $1,
resulting in a $56 surplus.

An alternative exercise:  How much would each member
pay if we simply all paid the same amount without tiered
pricing based on allocation size:

Total members: 2,623

Price per member: 3,167

So... Medium, Large, and X-Large would, by that method,
actually pay less, while X-Small and Small would pay
more.

I don't believe a flat fee would be fair. I also don't
believe that linear pricing based on IP resource
utilization is fair.  I am not sure that the current
structure is the best compromise between the two, but,
I think it does come reasonably close.

> The only other thing that ARIN could do to make my life easier would
> be to publish a better rwhois daemon or an easier API for changing
> SWIP/POC delegations.
>
Email templates are a difficult API?  Interesting.

I think that ARIN would rather deprecate RWHOIS at this point.  I know
that the original author wishes he'd never developed it and would
like to see it permanently deprecated.
> Hopefully this discussion we're having now will result in lower fees
> or rebates for most of us.

I guess the question is to what extent the majority should be allowed
to penalize the minority on the sole basis that they are running larger
organizations, have more or larger customers, etc.

Note, all of the subscriber member organizations I currently work with
would benefit from increasing the fees on large/x-large and lowering
other fees.  However, in spite of that, I don't believe either of the  
fee
structures I mentioned would be better than what is currently
in place.


Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071009/1557bd44/attachment.html>

From mike at mathbox.com  Tue Oct  9 16:38:54 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:38:54 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <5235FAFF-AE91-4C67-8338-F470EF9B0082@delong.com>
Message-ID: <200710091639614.SM03072@mikesplace>

Owen,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:27 PM
> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox
> Cc: 'Howard, W. Lee'; 'Internet Partners, Inc. Tech Support'; 
> arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: ARIN Fee discussion
> 
> >
> > The thing that all of your arguments ignore is that there is no  
> > relationship
> > between the fees imposed and the community resources consumed. The  
> > resources
> > belong to the community, not 2.8% of the community.
> 
> The thing this argument ignores is that the fees are NOT for the  
> resources.
> They are for the administration of the resources.

Well, that is precisely my argument.

> 
> Just like when a telephone company goes to NANPA for a new prefix,  
> they do
> not buy the prefix.  They pay for the administration to delegate the  
> prefix to them.
> If you want proof that they didn't buy the prefix, how about 
> the fact  
> that any
> customer they delegate a number to from that prefix can take said  
> number to
> another phone company free of charge and without penalty.

Irrelevent. Joe Average cannot get an IP address from Comcast and carry it
to Verizon. OTOH, the telephone company does not have the equivilent of RFC
1918, unless you want to count area code 700, which is not exactly the same
thing.

Further, I in no way suggest that paying based on resources consumed implies
ownership of the resource. 

> 
> Owen

Just because NANPA does that, that doesn't mean it is the correct thing to
do for IP addresses. Also, isn't the whole telephone industry regulated?
Yep, sure is.

NANPA funding
The NANPA function is performed under an FCC contract on a
fixed-price basis.
Costs associated with the administration of shared numbering
resources are allocated to participating countries based on population,
and then further adjusted based on NANPA services used by
each country. Participants pay only their share of the costs of the
NANPA services they require. Regulatory authorities in each participating
country determine how to recover these costs. In the U.S.,
which pays most of the cost, NANPA is funded by the telecommunications
industry under an arrangement specified in FCC rules.

Because this industry is not regulated, your argument does not apply. If it
was regulated, everyone would pay the same fee for the same amount of
resources, or they wouldn't pay anything at all.

I cannot think of any other industry, where the more resources you consume,
the more resources you get for free.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Tue Oct  9 16:52:23 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:52:23 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <200710091455153.SM02356@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385DEB@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>


> > 
> > 		Should it be a bell curve distribution?  
> > Half-bell?  Linear?
> > 		In other words, if there are about 3000 
> members, should the
> > 		distribution be (for XXL/XL/L/M/S) 15/500/2000/500/15 or
> > 		15/100/250/600/2000 or 15/300/600/900/1200?
> > 
> > 
> > 	Why in the world should anyone in ARIN community accept 
> > the current fee
> > 	structure or a bell curve fee structure.

I wasn't proposing, just asking a clarifying question.

Lee


From mike at mathbox.com  Tue Oct  9 17:06:23 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:06:23 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <4C272675-AD3C-406D-9FBA-C1357CEC22AC@delong.com>
Message-ID: <200710091706844.SM01360@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:01 PM
> To: David Muir Sharnoff; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: ARIN Fee discussion
> 
> 
> On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:27 AM, David Muir Sharnoff wrote:
> 
> 
> 	* I can only remind you all that ARIN is a bottom-up 
> organization, not a top 
> 	* down one.  There is no class of members who are 
> victims, only classes of 
> 	* members who fail to participate.
> 
> 	The cost of meaningfull participation in ARIN exceeds 
> one year's tithe.   
> 
> 	Until this discussion came along, it seemed the only 
> meaningful way
> 	to participate in ARIN was to go to one of the ARIN 
> meetings or to
> 	run for one of ARINs director slots.  For most of us, 
> attending one
> 	of the ARIN meetings would cost more than just paying the yearly
> 	fee.  The most we could hope to gain by participating 
> is less than
> 	the cost of participating.  Generally, only 
> organizations big enough
> 	to absorb the costs of participating actually participate.  That
> 	usually ends up being the same thing as top-down.
> 
> 
> I was participating in ARIN meaningfully well before I 
> attended a members
> meeting or ran for AC.  The ARIN PPML has been an effective method
> of participating in ARIN for many years now.  The PPML is for 
> all intents
> and purposes absolutely free. (You pay the cost of sending 
> and receiving
> your own emails, but, I think we can call that effectively free.)
> 
> My initial participation in ARIN was as an individual 
> representative of
> an end-user organization consisting of not more than 4 people.  My
> total investment in said participation was $100/year plus $0 
> additional
> costs to support my email (vs. what I would spend to do other internet
> access anyway).  If you want to count my entire internet costs that
> year, my annual cost was $1,600, so, not much more than an X-Small
> subscriber member's fees.
> 
> While the community does not show consensus for some of my ideas
> on how things should be, I certainly do not feel that my 
> input has been
> ignored or that it has received any less consideration than input from
> organizations like Verizon, SPRINT, AT&T, etc.  Indeed, I believe that
> more of the policies I have drafted have been adopted than those
> drafted by AT&T or Verizon representatives.
> 
> The ARIN-DISCUSS mailing list has expanded that ability to facilitate
> topics which are not appropriate to PPML and to keep an open
> channel for the community (that's right, it's not even limited to
> the membership, it's open to the entire community) to communicate
> their opinions with each other and with the ARIN BoT, AC, and
> staff.
> 
> 
> 	Every year, I read of the list of candidates and look 
> for one that 
> 	has a statement saying something like: "The fees are 
> too high and I will
> 	lower them" or "the fees are disproportionate and I 
> will make the
> 	large users pay more."   So far there has been no such 
> candidate.
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the BoT candidates or the AC candidates?
> 
> The AC candidates can't do anything about fees, so, of course there
> would not be one making such a statement.
> 
> As for the BoT, frankly, I think that this is the first time there has
> been any real discussion of this particular subject.  I don't believe
> that ARIN's fees overall are excessive.  I do think that it might make
> more sense under the circumstances to make the fee structure
> somewhat more topheavy than it currently is (i.e. raise fees on
> the large and x-large orgs.), but, I don't think that would lower
> the fees as much as you expect for the other orgs.  Let's look at
> the math:
> 
> Current:
>            # Members   % Members   % v4 space   % fees
> Xtra Small      390        14.8         0.29       5.7
> Small         1,571        59.8         4.64      42.6
> Medium          518        19.9         8.92      28.0
> Large            71         2.7         6.87       7.7
> Xtra Large       73         2.8        79.28      15.8
> 
> 
> 
> So... Let's say we changed the fee structure so that we 
> doubled the Large
> and X-Large fees and distributed the savings evenly to the 
> other categories
> of membership.
> 
> First, the total amount collected under the current structure is:
> 
> Size # Members Price @ Total Collected
> X-Small   390  1,250   487,500
> Small 1,571  2,250 3,534,750
> Medium   518  4,500 2,331,000
> Large    71  9,000   639,000
> X-Large    73 18,000 1,314,000
> 
> 
> Total 8,306,250
> 
> 
> Now, here's what it would look like if we doubled the fees for
> Large and X-Large members:
> 
> Size # Members Price @ Total Collected
> X-Small   390    462   180,180
> Small 1,571  1,462 2,296,802
> Medium   518  3,712 1,922,816
> Large    71 18,000 1,278,000
> X-Large    73 36,000 2,628,000
> 
> 
> Total 8,305,798
> 
> 
> The additional amount collected from the 144 members
> in those two categories would be 1,953,000.  This
> would be divided amongst the 2,479 other members
> providing an annual savings to each other member
> of approximately $788 each.  The discrepency
> of $452 in the total is the result of rounding
> the savings UP to 788/member in the smaller
> categories.  I think the easiest way to resolve
> that would be to increase the medium fee by $1,
> resulting in a $56 surplus.
> 
> 
> An alternative exercise:  How much would each member
> pay if we simply all paid the same amount without tiered
> pricing based on allocation size:
> 
> 
> Total members: 2,623
> 
> 
> Price per member: 3,167
> 
> 
> So... Medium, Large, and X-Large would, by that method,
> actually pay less, while X-Small and Small would pay
> more.
> 
> 
> I don't believe a flat fee would be fair. I also don't
> believe that linear pricing based on IP resource
> utilization is fair.  I am not sure that the current
> structure is the best compromise between the two, but,
> I think it does come reasonably close.
> 
> 
> 
> 	The only other thing that ARIN could do to make my life 
> easier would
> 	be to publish a better rwhois daemon or an easier API 
> for changing
> 	SWIP/POC delegations.
> 
> 
> Email templates are a difficult API?  Interesting.
> 
> I think that ARIN would rather deprecate RWHOIS at this point.  I know
> that the original author wishes he'd never developed it and would
> like to see it permanently deprecated.
> 
> 
> 	Hopefully this discussion we're having now will result 
> in lower fees
> 	or rebates for most of us.
> 
> 
> I guess the question is to what extent the majority should be allowed
> to penalize the minority on the sole basis that they are 
> running larger
> organizations, have more or larger customers, etc.
> 
> Note, all of the subscriber member organizations I currently work with
> would benefit from increasing the fees on large/x-large and lowering
> other fees.  However, in spite of that, I don't believe 
> either of the fee
> structures I mentioned would be better than what is currently
> in place.  
> 
> 
> Owen

Owen, 

Well, lets also examine that based on fixed fee per resource consumed.

A /13 contains 2048 /24s. Xtra Large fee is $18,000. So, $18000 / 2048 is
$8.79 per /24. That is fair.

>From ARIN reports, I totalled the /24s allocated to ISP from 1999 through
2006 plus 01/07 through 09/07. The total came to 1,148,855 /24s. That
doesn't tell me how many were returned. I couldn't find those stats. But
lets use that as an example. 1,148,855 /24s * $8.79 per /24 is $10,098,435.
Gosh, that is fairly close to the ARIN budget. And of course, then no one
would be able to say, "But they get them for free. How can I compete against
that?"

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)




From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 17:13:04 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:13:04 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <200710091706844.SM01360@mikesplace>
References: <200710091706844.SM01360@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <779ED8D8-2DB6-4D48-A1E5-BB7C87C08881@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:06 PM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
>>
>
> Owen,
>
> Well, lets also examine that based on fixed fee per resource consumed.
>
> A /13 contains 2048 /24s. Xtra Large fee is $18,000. So, $18000 /  
> 2048 is
> $8.79 per /24. That is fair.

And someone with a /20 pays $140 or so per /24...

Typically in economies of sale, the larger volume you buy, the lower  
the price over all, again, in volume.. Assuming that someone buying  
a /13 is getting a huge volume of IP space vs. say a /20, it is  
logical to assume a "volume discount"...

However, it has been mentioned several times here that we are NOT  
buying IP space, but rather maintenance of that space.  All things  
being equal, I would like to assume that it costs more to maintain a / 
13 allocation than a /20. That said,  the pricing matrix is greatly  
flawed.


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Tue Oct  9 17:19:08 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:19:08 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <6EBCB675-294E-44DF-8402-3218899B8063@delong.com>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385E1B@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

Owen said:
>
> Lee, what would the fee per year look like if ARIN charged 
> a single flat fee to all subscriber members (LIR/ISP members)?

I must not understand your question, because I'm sure you can
divide a $10,400,000 budget by 3000 members ($3,466, in case
anyone chooses not to).

Last time I looked at numbers that way, IPv4 allocation 
renewals were about 70% of revenue.  If that's what you mean,
you could try $7,000,000 / 3000 = $2,333.  

These are order of magnitude numbers, not even estimates.

> Also, Lee, is it possible to get some idea of what percentage 
> of ARIN's annual costs are fixed and what percentage are 
> incremental per	allocation.  

Difficult to judge.  Look at the budget
http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
and try to figure out which are incremental per allocation.

> Finally, would it be possible to get the average number
> of allocations and the average number of email/telephone interactions
> per year for each size category (I suspect the latter is more Leslie's
> domain).

Email, phone calls, templates on slide 6 (and see also
slide 8):
http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/PDF/wednesday/RSD_Nobile.p
df

You're right that these numbers, if available, would come
from Registration Services, so let's see if they have this
kind of data.

Lee



From tedm at ipinc.net  Tue Oct  9 17:22:03 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:22:03 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710082012280.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOGEBMHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:38 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Keith W. Hare; arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>
>
>On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> This disingenuous story ignores the real issue.
>
>Hardly disingenuous. I think it mirrors a large number of Legacy
>experiences.
>

In that case the answer to question #1 would be NO - thus the entire
discussion would be pointless as there would not be enough IPv4 resources
tied up in legacy allocations as to make any difference in the grand
scheme of things.

>> The rest of the IPv4 world has been out there doing their thing - and
>> their thing involved watching out for your interests.  If they hadn't
>> been doing this, your block could have likely been routed by someone
>> else somewhere else and you would have lost the use of it.  I'm sure
>> if that happened you would have suddenly 'discovered' ARIN real fast.
>
>You've been watching out for Legacy interests?  I don't think so.
>Legacy's made this sandbox. You are the one playing in _our_ sandbox,
>with toys that _we_ made.
>

I'm the one PAYING for the sandbox to be maintained, YOU are NOT.  Thus,
it's MY sandbox.  I and the
rest of my paying friends could simply withdraw from the sandbox and create
our own sandbox that doesen't even recognize you at all if we felt like
doing so.  You would then keep
your sandbox and figure out how to pay for it yourself, with you and the
rest
of your non-paying friends.

The fact that you feel the legacy holders should get a free ride forever
is just immature irresponsibility.  The legacy holders got a free ride in
the beginning because the US taxpayers were paying for it.  Now, ARIN is.
Well someone needs to pay salaries of the people managing the list of IP's
That is precisely why the legacy holders free ride was discontinued with
IPv6.  If the legacy holders had some moral or ethical reason to get a
free ride forever, then they would have all gotten free IPv6 assignments.

Don't mistake the fact that the community has recognized that IPv4
assignments are going to be obsolete eventually, and thus is willing
to tolerate the legacy holders free ride with IPv4 until that happens,
for some sort of mandate
that the legacy holders are supposed to get a free ride.  If the IPv4
to IPv6 transition wasn't on the horizon, the legacy holders would be
paying now.

>Legacy's haven't just 'discovered ARIN'. We've always known who ARIN
>was, who the Internic was before that, and SRI before that. I think
>you've taken some comments a little too literally. It is true that
>Legacy's haven't been participating in ARIN, and so people like you have
>been bashing Legacy's with little rebuttal.

Bashing the legacy holders?  Hardly.  How is it bashing to state the
fact that someone isn't paying for something that is costing someone
else money?  Oh I forgot, in your OPPOSITE universe, freeloaders are
good, pluggers who pay for everything are bad.  Boy, you must get a
headache walking around on your head all day long.  Beats tinfoil
hats, I guess.

>
>Taking away just reverse DNS and electronic whois, but keeping
>registrations as-is, isn't going to fly.  Those are the only 'free
>services' that ARIN provides. BTW, even if Sprunk were right and ARIN
>didn't have obligation to provide those services, that still wouldn't
>fly:  Non-legacy's want to see reverse DNS for Legacy's and they want to
>see whois data for Legacy's.  These are just dumb ideas and stupid
>schemes.
>

Whatever.  I wasn't the one out there saying we should proactively do
this - as in shoot first and ask questions later.

But I certainly see value in removing legacy assignments and allocations
that ARE NOT IN USE.  And it is pretty easy to see if they are in use,
on my router, "show ip bgp xx.xx.xx.xx" works pretty well.

>
>This list is _your_ interest in trying to unlawfully take these
>resources for your own benefit.
>
>Standing against your scheme is the fact that it isn't legal. Legacy's
>have as much right to monetize these resources as you do.  MIT has the
>same right as British Telecom to monetize IP resources.  Legacy's have
>more right, if one could possibly have more right.
>

Taking a reasonable discussion and turning it into a religious rant
only serves the interests of the people who want to maintain the status
quo.  And if that is your goal then simply answer the damn question #1
I already proposed - are there significant enough IPv4 resources tied
up in legacy allocations to make a difference to IPv4 runout?  If not,
then this discussion is a waste of time.

Ted



From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Tue Oct  9 17:23:30 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:23:30 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <779ED8D8-2DB6-4D48-A1E5-BB7C87C08881@mia.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385E21@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

> However, it has been mentioned several times here that we are 
> NOT buying IP space, but rather maintenance of that space.  
> All things being equal, I would like to assume that it costs 
> more to maintain a /13 allocation than a /20. That said,  
> the pricing matrix is greatly flawed.

More precisely, you would say it costs more per address to
maintain a /13 allocation than a /20.  That is a different
assumption than we have used in the past; it is healthy to
question our assumptions.

We've heard from a fair number of people, but I'd like to
hear from more.  

Lee


From mike at mathbox.com  Tue Oct  9 17:29:17 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:29:17 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <779ED8D8-2DB6-4D48-A1E5-BB7C87C08881@mia.net>
Message-ID: <200710091729735.SM03376@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy 
> Anthony Kinsey
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:13 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: ARIN Fee discussion
> 
> 
> On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:06 PM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Owen,
> >
> > Well, lets also examine that based on fixed fee per 
> resource consumed.
> >
> > A /13 contains 2048 /24s. Xtra Large fee is $18,000. So, $18000 /  
> > 2048 is
> > $8.79 per /24. That is fair.
> 
> And someone with a /20 pays $140 or so per /24...
> 
> Typically in economies of sale, the larger volume you buy, the lower  
> the price over all, again, in volume.. Assuming that someone buying  
> a /13 is getting a huge volume of IP space vs. say a /20, it is  
> logical to assume a "volume discount"..

Volume discounts normally apply, because it is less expensive to manufacture
larger batches, than small batches. ARIN does not manufacture. ARIN
distributes a finite resource. More to some than others.


> 
> However, it has been mentioned several times here that we are NOT  
> buying IP space, but rather maintenance of that space.  All things  
> being equal, I would like to assume that it costs more to 
> maintain a / 
> 13 allocation than a /20. That said,  the pricing matrix is greatly  
> flawed.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
>   e-mail: jer at mia.net
> _____________________________________
> Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
> 401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
> Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
> Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
> Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 


Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)  




From steven.feldman at cnet.com  Tue Oct  9 17:31:42 2007
From: steven.feldman at cnet.com (Steve Feldman)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:31:42 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <779ED8D8-2DB6-4D48-A1E5-BB7C87C08881@mia.net>
References: <200710091706844.SM01360@mikesplace>
	<779ED8D8-2DB6-4D48-A1E5-BB7C87C08881@mia.net>
Message-ID: <A71A17CD-3F05-4E9A-B6C9-B8A9C85E0963@cnet.com>

On Oct 9, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey wrote:

> All things being equal, I would like to assume that it
> costs more to maintain /13 allocation than a /20.

You might like to assume that, but is it true?

Haven't the people at ARIN who would know been telling us that
it's not, to any significant degree?

(This is not intended to weigh in on the argument over how the
fees should be allocated, since I don't really think I have
enough information to form an educated opinion yet.)
	Steve


From mike at mathbox.com  Tue Oct  9 17:59:15 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:59:15 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
Message-ID: <200710091759793.SM01300@mikesplace>

I just wanted to take a time-out and acknowledge Owen's effort in
responding. I do not know Owen personally, only from this particular
discussion. He has been a gentleman and tireless in his efforts. I do know
it takes time to respond.

Owen, thank you for your time.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) 




From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 18:35:32 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:35:32 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOGEBMHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>
References: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOGEBMHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <A983AA50-5B85-4C2B-9671-74A9D854EBF5@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> \
>
> Bashing the legacy holders?  Hardly.  How is it bashing to state the
> fact that someone isn't paying for something that is costing someone
> else money?  Oh I forgot, in your OPPOSITE universe, freeloaders are
> good, pluggers who pay for everything are bad.  Boy, you must get a
> headache walking around on your head all day long.  Beats tinfoil
> hats, I guess.
>

Do keep in mind that the majority of the legacy holders are likely  
Universities, or other larger corps, where the person responsible for  
the allocation is not paying for the allocation out of their own  
pocket....

I own the company... The money comes out of my pocket..  It's pretty  
easy not to find fault with the status quo when someone else is  
footing the bill...


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 18:39:36 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:39:36 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <200710091729735.SM03376@mikesplace>
References: <200710091729735.SM03376@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <6EACBD26-6D03-4923-97AC-3185177D4CDB@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Typically in economies of sale, the larger volume you buy, the lower
>> the price over all, again, in volume.. Assuming that someone buying
>> a /13 is getting a huge volume of IP space vs. say a /20, it is
>> logical to assume a "volume discount"..
>
> Volume discounts normally apply, because it is less expensive to  
> manufacture
> larger batches, than small batches. ARIN does not manufacture. ARIN
> distributes a finite resource. More to some than others.
>
>
>>
>> Ho

That said, "finite" resources tend to have a hefty premium, and a  
FIXED costs... I've not seen a discount on volume purchases of  
commodities, like say, for instance, gold...



Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 18:42:01 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:42:01 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <A71A17CD-3F05-4E9A-B6C9-B8A9C85E0963@cnet.com>
References: <200710091706844.SM01360@mikesplace>
	<779ED8D8-2DB6-4D48-A1E5-BB7C87C08881@mia.net>
	<A71A17CD-3F05-4E9A-B6C9-B8A9C85E0963@cnet.com>
Message-ID: <727CB399-451F-47BB-BA89-34B7D618339F@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Steve Feldman wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey wrote:
>
>> All things being equal, I would like to assume that it
>> costs more to maintain /13 allocation than a /20.
>
> You might like to assume that, but is it true?

I don't know.. Over the course of this thread there have been several  
intimations that it was true...
>
> Haven't the people at ARIN who would know been telling us that
> it's not, to any significant degree?

I thought they were.. Maybe I misread somewhere along the line.
>
> (This is not intended to weigh in on the argument over how the
> fees should be allocated, since I don't really think I have
> enough information to form an educated opinion yet.)
> 	Steve
>

No problem.. I formed my opinion based on what others were saying...  
I was given the impression that larger allocations are more costly to  
maintain...


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From captain at netidea.com  Tue Oct  9 18:42:54 2007
From: captain at netidea.com (Kirk Ismay)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:42:54 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <200710091706844.SM01360@mikesplace>
References: <200710091706844.SM01360@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <470C03EE.4040408@netidea.com>


> Owen, 
>
> Well, lets also examine that based on fixed fee per resource consumed.
>
> A /13 contains 2048 /24s. Xtra Large fee is $18,000. So, $18000 / 2048 is
> $8.79 per /24. That is fair.
>
> >From ARIN reports, I totalled the /24s allocated to ISP from 1999 through
> 2006 plus 01/07 through 09/07. The total came to 1,148,855 /24s. That
> doesn't tell me how many were returned. I couldn't find those stats. But
> lets use that as an example. 1,148,855 /24s * $8.79 per /24 is $10,098,435.
> Gosh, that is fairly close to the ARIN budget. And of course, then no one
> would be able to say, "But they get them for free. How can I compete against
> that?"
>   
I would support Michael's idea of paying per /24 at a fixed annual fee 
for all sizes of organization. Would it help to call it a fee for rental 
of the IPv4 addresses? This makes it clear that IP addresses are not 
property and can't be owned by anyone.  The same per subnet structure 
should be used for IPv6 as well, obviously, though we should keep the  
current "pay the lesser of your IPv4 or IPv6 fees" waiver to encourage 
IPv6 adoption.  It may also provide a financial incentive to conserve 
address space.

If there is a significant cost to process an allocation request, then 
perhaps there should be a flat rate for that as well, for each 
application made.   This way the cost of processing the application is 
separate from the IP allocation rental.

This would also make the fee schedule easier to understand and administer.

-- 

Sincerely, 
Kirk Ismay
System Administrator

--
Net Idea
201-625 Front Street Nelson, BC V1L 4B6
P:250-352-3512 | F:250-352-9780 | TF:1-888-352-3512

Check out our brand new website! www.netidea.com



From jer at mia.net  Tue Oct  9 18:50:37 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:50:37 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <000501c80abf$df214530$0401a8c0@Macintosh>
References: <200710091706844.SM01360@mikesplace>
	<779ED8D8-2DB6-4D48-A1E5-BB7C87C08881@mia.net>
	<000501c80abf$df214530$0401a8c0@Macintosh>
Message-ID: <148D8E78-A06E-4E9D-823A-5EED40690593@mia.net>


On Oct 9, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Shawn Davison wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
> We all like to assume things, but do you know what they say when  
> you ass-u-me?
>
> t

I know.. That is the third time I've heard that one this week.. The  
last person to say it was my kids principle.   ASS U ME  ;)

Cheers.


Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com





From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Tue Oct  9 21:03:46 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:03:46 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOOEBNHEAA.support@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385EA3@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

> >Should it be a bell curve distribution?  Half-bell?  Linear?
> >In other words, if there are about 3000 members, should the 
> >distribution be (for XXL/XL/L/M/S) 15/500/2000/500/15 or 
> >15/100/250/600/2000 or 15/300/600/900/1200?
>
> The top tier currently spans a /14 all the way up to an /8 I 
> would guess.  I don't know if ARIN has a max allocation limit 
> but I'll assume it's an /8

There used to be a limit by policy, but it got removed through
the public policy process.  You get as much as you can justify.

But I understand your point: the tiering concept is fine as
far as it goes, but we need additional tiers, all the way up
to /1, for which the fee should be the GDP of China or the
Internet, whichever is greater.

> For example, top tier would be /8 only, next tier would be 
> /9, next tier would be /10, next tier would be /11 and so on 
> until you get to /14, then perhaps /15 and /16 in one tier, 
> then /17, /18, /19, and so on.  I think you get the idea.

Generally.  You don't necessarily want a bell curve, but some
kind of curve with few orgs in the largest category, and many 
orgs in the smallest.  Thanks for clarifying.

> For IPv6 it's a completely different issue because IPv6 is 
> not a scarce resource - thus fee-based incentives to limit 
> IPv6 uptake do not belong in the mix.  Tiered pricing does, 
> though, for the reason I already cited.
> 
> Ted
> 
> PS:  The larger orgs are usually far less responsive to 
> complaints than the smaller orgs which is another annoyance 
> and puts even more burden on the rest of the Internet.

My experience has not been consistent.  Sometimes large orgs
do something, but their lawyers have told them not to tell
you what they're doing.   Sometimes small orgs don't know
what you're talking about when you complain, or are so
overworked they can't even read PPML, much less respond to
abuse complaints[1].  Just as often, it's as you say.

Lee

[1] All right, so maybe PPML's not everyone's first priority. 
Even I have a day job.


From dean at av8.net  Tue Oct  9 22:26:45 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 22:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385C4E@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710092129090.17957-100000@citation2.av8.net>

Oops. My mistake. In May I reviewed financials, and remembered the
numbers wrong.  For some reason I thought ARIN was spending about 3
million a year. Actually, ARIN was saving almost that much, until 2007.

However, having now reviewed that again, and I have to say the budgets
have increased more than a bit, from about:

$ 7.5 million in 2005, 
$ 8.6 million in 2006 
$10.3 million in 2007.  

About a 20% increase in expenses in one year, one flat revenue. Doesn't
seem very good. The increase is just about enough to expect to break
even. Previously ARIN had been right around 10 million a year, and ARIN
was saving up about 2 to 3 million per year, which is how the 20 million
surplus developed.  I have to question the rise in expenses.  A couple
things jump right off the page:

Indeed, as someone mailed me offlist travel is way up.  ARIN is spending
nearly $1.2 million on travel this year.  (what the he#?) 

$ 898k in 2005 
$ 816k in 2006 
$1193k for 2007

A 46% increase in one year. Wow!

And, I wonder why ARIN is giving $50,000 to Nanog.  I don't attend ARIN
meetings because Nanog members have threatened to 'find me in alley' for
telling them that the ECPA applied to ISPs (it did apply; Jeremy Porter
made the threat). There are other dubious nefarious activities directly
or indirectly supported by Nanog, such as SORBS. Nanog supports SORBS by
silencing critics of SORBS, while giving SORBS a platform for deception,
fraud, and defamation free from any criticism and dispute.  Nanog was
also the platform by which Dan Karrenberg and Vixie launched scientific
frauds about the stability of stateful Anycast. Again, well-founded
criticism of and valid dispute were silenced on the day of Karrenberg's
announcement.  More info at http://www.iadl.org/nanog/nanog-story.html

I also rather object to ARIN having joint meetings with Nanog, since
this transfers benefits to Nanog, and doesn't seem to benefit ARIN in
any way that I can see. From looking at the Nanog meeting attendence
lists, Nanog has about 40 or so 'core' people, and a few hundred
transient members at any time who stay a few years or less.  It doesn't
really retain participants. (this may be related to the problems cited
above and elsewhere)  $50,000 is a tremendously large sum for such a
small organization.  I can't see how the interests of ARIN are benefited
by supporting Nanog, whatever its history good or bad. Lets save the
$50,000 and also not associate with disreputable groups of essentially,
radical antispammers, that threaten physical violence against those with
whom they disagree.

		--Dean


On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Howard, W. Lee wrote:

> > ARIN already has such a huge surplus that it strains 
> > non-profit status to have such profit: ARIN can now operate 
> > for something like 7 years with no further income.  
> 
> 
> ARIN's published budget for 2007 projects about
> $10,312,000 in expenses.
> http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
> 
> ARIN's unrestricted net assets as of December 31, 2006 
> were $20,413,323.
> http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual/2006_audited_financials.pd
> f
> 
> 
> I routinely check with ARIN's financial and legal advisors
> on ARIN's not-for-profit status, and I believe it is not
> under strain.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From plzak at arin.net  Tue Oct  9 23:53:23 2007
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:53:23 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <20071009182701.CD3A61265F4@idiom.com>
References: <200710091337342.SM03316@mikesplace>
	<Pine.SOC.4.61.0710091049400.7596@paixhost.pch.net>
	<20071009182701.CD3A61265F4@idiom.com>
Message-ID: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202933A116E@EDAMAME.arin.net>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Muir Sharnoff
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:27 PM
> To: Bill Woodcock
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: ARIN Fee discussion
>
<SNIP>
>
> The only other thing that ARIN could do to make my life easier would
> be to publish a better rwhois daemon or an easier API for changing
> SWIP/POC delegations.
>

ARIN is undertaking a number of improvements in the way people manage their data. This is something that the new ARIN CTO, Mark Kosters, will be devoting time to in the coming year.

Ray




> Hopefully this discussion we're having now will result in lower fees
> or rebates for most of us.
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the
> ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Wed Oct 10 06:40:47 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:40:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385E1B@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385EE2@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

Self-replying, sorry about that. 

> divide a $10,400,000 budget by 3000 members ($3,466, in case 
> anyone chooses not to).

btw, it's 2,901 members; I was rounding:
http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html

> > Finally, would it be possible to get the average number of 
> allocations 
> > and the average number of email/telephone interactions per year for 
> > each size category (I suspect the latter is more Leslie's domain).
> 
> Email, phone calls, templates on slide 6 (and see also slide 8):
> http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/PDF/wednesday/RS
> D_Nobile.p
> df
> 
> You're right that these numbers, if available, would come 
> from Registration Services, so let's see if they have this 
> kind of data.

I checked, and except for the  numbers above, interactions 
aren't tracked by size category.  We could implement a system to 
allow data mining, but it would either take time (more labor cost) 
or potentially distract from other priorities.

Which is not to say no, exactly, but to suggest that people look
at the presentations next week (which will be available online,
webcast http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XX/webcast.html or archives a
later http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/index.html ) and help
decide what ARIN's priorities should be.

For the record, this arin-discuss mailing list is the correct
place to discuss those priorities.

Lee



From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Wed Oct 10 07:26:58 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:26:58 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710092129090.17957-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385EFF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

> However, having now reviewed that again, and I have to say 
> the budgets have increased more than a bit, from about:
> 
> $ 7.5 million in 2005,
> $ 8.6 million in 2006
> $10.3 million in 2007.  
>
> About a 20% increase in expenses in one year, one flat 
> revenue. 

As I recall (and I'm not checking all of my notes, because I
can only spend a few minutes here) we increased travel (see
below) and legal reserves in 2007, which accounts for most
of the increase.  I do believe our expense budget has been
increasing 8-10% annually for the past several years.

Our budgets sometimes underestimate revenue and overestimate
expenses, which is also part of the contribution to reserves.
I had not foreseen the continued rise in stock market
performance for the past few years, or the level of success
of our collections, for instance.  I had foreseen greater
use of reserve/contingency funds.

> Indeed, as someone mailed me offlist travel is way up.  ARIN 
> is spending nearly $1.2 million on travel this year. 

The community has been requesting additional outreach.  Some
of our outreach costs are part of the "Outreach" line item,
and some are related to travel expenses for members of ARIN's
Board, Advisory Council and staff.  

There's a list of events at http://www.arin.net/meetings/calendar.html
I don't know that ARIN has staff at all of those events, but
that's an idea of how ARIN is trying to reach into the
community.  We try to send some people to other RIR meetings,
ICANN, and major industry events.

Also, I don't want to leave the impression that we're off on
holiday boondoggles.  Most ARIN Board and AC meetings are by
teleconference.  We meet in person when we go to ARIN meetings,
and once or twice a year we'll meet someplace else.  For Board
meetings, we usually meet at ARIN's office in Virginia, where
the attending staff and some Board members have no travel
expense.  We've been known to meet concurrently with IETF,
where many of us would already be.  Our last two face-to-face
meetings were at the last public policy meeting (which I grant
you was in Puerto Rico, which was nice), and Chicago.  We don't
meet outside of our region.


> And, I wonder why ARIN is giving $50,000 to Nanog.  

I can't speak for the whole Board on this, but here's why I
think it's a good idea:
NANOG provides a forum for technical interaction between
ISPs.  In some regions, this is provided by RIRs.  I think
this kind of forum is of benefit to the entire community,
and I wish I personally could attend more NANOG meetings.

> I also rather object to ARIN having joint meetings with 
> Nanog, since this transfers benefits to Nanog, and doesn't 
> seem to benefit ARIN in any way that I can see. 

More people go to NANOG than ARIN.  When we have joint
meetings, we get more attendees at the ARIN meeting, and
more of them are attending for the first time.  Most people
who attend the ARIN meeting or both meetings tell us that
they like having joint meetings.  We don't hold both ARIN
meetings jointly with NANOG.  We can run joint meetings
with other organizations, if you (the community) and they
(the other organization) wish.

> 
> 		--Dean

I hope you (and the entire community) are finding this
discussion to be open, and your Board members to be
responsive.  I am trying not to respond to every post,
but only to those with questions or inaccuracies.  I
appreciate questions about ARIN's finances, because it
gives me a chance to check with the members on how you
all feel you are being served.

Thank you for that opportunity,

Lee


From jer at mia.net  Wed Oct 10 07:49:28 2007
From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:49:28 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385EFF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385EFF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <05D74FE4-BA8B-4F83-9389-8255D24741B6@mia.net>

I would imagine the majority of travel budget increases likely have  
to do with the increasing costs in traveling, ie., fuel, etc... The  
travel budget looks like it has increased at about the same rate as  
every other expense, as well as the rate of increase of incoming  
revenue...






Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
  e-mail: jer at mia.net
_____________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc.                                      www.mia.net
401 Host Drive                              www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147         www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759             www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959              www.thednsplace.com




From dean at av8.net  Wed Oct 10 11:37:37 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:37:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385EFF@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101126200.17965-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> > And, I wonder why ARIN is giving $50,000 to Nanog.  
> 
> I can't speak for the whole Board on this, but here's why I think it's
> a good idea: NANOG provides a forum for technical interaction between
> ISPs.  In some regions, this is provided by RIRs.  I think this kind
> of forum is of benefit to the entire community, and I wish I
> personally could attend more NANOG meetings.

It is a quite limited interaction, benefiting a very small number of
ISPs. Its is unfair to the vast bulk of other ISPs who don't participate
in Nanog.

You didn't address why you gave such a comparatively large amount to
such a small organization.


> > I also rather object to ARIN having joint meetings with 
> > Nanog, since this transfers benefits to Nanog, and doesn't 
> > seem to benefit ARIN in any way that I can see. 
> 
> More people go to NANOG than ARIN.  When we have joint meetings, we
> get more attendees at the ARIN meeting, and more of them are attending
> for the first time.

And how many of those people are likely to become ARIN members? How many
are even the whois contacts for their companies?

> Most people who attend the ARIN meeting or both meetings tell us that
> they like having joint meetings.

I'm sure the Nanog people say that. Nanog attendence has dramatically
increased after joint meetings with ARIN.

> We don't hold both ARIN meetings jointly with NANOG.  We can run joint
> meetings with other organizations, if you (the community) and they
> (the other organization) wish.

I'll see what I can arrange. I can arrange a lot more if you'll donate 
$50,000 to other organizations as well. 


> I hope you (and the entire community) are finding this discussion to
> be open, and your Board members to be responsive.

Yes. Thanks.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From andrew.dul at quark.net  Wed Oct 10 11:38:33 2007
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andrew=20Dul?=)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:38:33 -0800
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
Message-ID: <20071010153833.10654.qmail@hoster908.com>

>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
>  Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
>  Sent: 09 Oct '07 10:17
>  
>  
>  On Oct 9, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>  > Lee, is it possible to get some idea of what percentage of ARIN's
>  > annual costs are fixed and what percentage are incremental per
>  > allocation.
>  
>  This is something I've chatted with Lee and others about, and the  
>  consensus has been that that's a pretty gray area.  Not because the  
>  numbers aren't available; they are, in spades...  But because it's  
>  almost completely subjective as to which would be amortized per  
>  allocation, and which would be counted as overhead.
>  
>  The reason I've been asking the same question you are, Owen, is  
>  because I'd like to see ARIN move toward a fee model wherein all  
>  overhead costs, like the cost of maintaining whois, maintaining the  
>  in-addr, holding meetings, keeping the office doors open, et cetera,  
>  would be paid for from an endowment, while all transactional costs,  
>  like the cost of an IP analyst responding to a request for an AS  
>  number, would be billed to the recipient of the service, at cost.
>  
>  That would get completely away from the misimpression that there's a  
>  per-IP-address cost, and make the cost of ARIN's services, regardless  
>  of whether they're provided to a small member, a large member, an end-
>  user, or a legacy-holder, completely fair and transparent.
>  
>  Or at least, that's my take on what would be fair.
>  
>  Anybody have any thoughts on that?
>  

An endowment financing method certainly would be a large change from our current funding model, and it is one that should have some serious thought and consideration.  One can see how the use of an endowment to fund the overhead costs would be desirable from a long-term perspective.  However, funding of endowments can be tricky and a number of non-profits I have had exposure to have suffered from good intent with an initial endowment strategy, but over time the expenses increased such that the endowment was unable to support the expenses that it was originally intended to be used for or other changes in the environment changed the financial model of the organization.   One way that one maybe could help prevent endowment decay would be for the ongoing transactional costs to contain a portion which was earmarked for the endowment during the initial years of endowment funding.

As you noted above separating the overhead from the transactional costs can be complex and I think it would be hard to separate the overhead vs. transactional costs.  I believe it could be done though.

One other concern about this funding model would be the perception if someday ARIN had a "huge" endowment that was constantly growing such that the annual return from the endowment greatly exceeded ARIN's overhead expenses.  If that happened how would/could the excess income be used?   This maybe similar to the current (incorrect in my opinion) perception that ARIN currently may have a "huge & excessive" operating reserve.

Andrew


From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Oct 10 13:33:51 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:33:51 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710092120540.17957-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOGECAHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:24 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Keith W. Hare
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>
>
>On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>> I'm the one PAYING for the sandbox to be maintained, YOU are NOT.
>> Thus, it's MY sandbox.  I and the rest of my paying friends could
>> simply withdraw from the sandbox and create our own sandbox that
>> doesen't even recognize you at all if we felt like doing so.  You
>> would then keep your sandbox and figure out how to pay for it
>> yourself, with you and the rest of your non-paying friends.
>
>We pay in different ways. I paid in sweat and tears and risk. You pay in
>cash.
>

Legacy holder's sweat equity entitled them to get an advance start in
the business.  That is what sweat equity and risk gives you - is a leg up.
For the legacy holders that got that leg up and took advantage of it -
well all -I- can say, is that many of them are a LOT bigger and richer than
my
employer is, and will ever be.

My employer didn't take the same risk that the legacy holders took, and
so as a result, he will never be able to be as big or as rich as a legacy
holder that did that such a risk.  That is the price of being cautious.
Of course, on the down side, I'm sure a number of leg-up legacy holders
went banko and are no longer in existence.  That is why it was a risk.

But the time that being a legacy holder gives you the leg up is over.  It
is not my problem if a legacy holder that didn't take advantage of the
leg-up didn't do so - and is now sitting around, mooning for the good
old days and expecting the world to pay for him because a long time ago
he put some effort in when nobody else would.

Your sweat equity got you your advance start.  If you peeed it away by
doing nothing, then it's not our problem.

We all have our regrets.  Don't you think that if I had given it an ounce
of thought I would have registered book.com and a whole host of
other domain names way back in 1996?  Well I didn't.  And so today I'm not
sitting on a cool million.  But I'm not sitting around whining, expecting
the
rest of the Internet to give me free DNS registrations just because I
was out there registering my 1 or 2 domain names in 1996 before anyone
realized
how valuable they would be.

>
>Your claims aren't true; Legacy haven't received a free ride.  Legacy's
>_built_ the ride.
>

Legacy holders built the ride that WAS.

I'm paying for the ride that IS.

Ted



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Oct 10 13:47:49 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:47:49 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710092129090.17957-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOKECAHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:27 PM
>To: Howard, W. Lee
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>
>
>And, I wonder why ARIN is giving $50,000 to Nanog. 

While I am not entirely trustful of NANOG myself (what Merit
did with the gated code was reprehensible IMHO) I strongly
support ARIN giving them money.  In fact I would like to see
ARIN give even more of these groups (Internet Society, etc.)
money.  And I would like to see this be a regular occurance.

So, that when the day that the United Nations decides to legally
screw over ARIN comes, and the UN runs around to these various
groups (like NANOG) looking for support, these groups will make
the decision to tell the UN to go screw itself rather than to
give up the ARIN money teat.

Ted


From dean at av8.net  Wed Oct 10 14:00:23 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:00:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101358500.18565-100000@citation2.av8.net>

Some legacy's have emailed me off-list with interest in setting up a
legal defense fund, and to investigate the idea of forming a new
registry to handle legacy assignments.  I've started the work on forming
the defense fund. Legacy's can mail me directly for details.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From owen at delong.com  Wed Oct 10 14:21:03 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:21:03 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101358500.18565-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101358500.18565-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com>

Defense from what?

While there are a few people on the PPML and arin-discuss who have
suggested various forms of fee structures and such, but, there hasn't
been anything even close to consensus in favor of such a thing.

I believe that the majority of ARIN members support the idea of outreach
and desire to build a positive relationship with legacy holders working
towards a situation where legacy holders join the ARIN fold and there
is no longer a need for such a distinction.

Most legacy holders I talk to do not see the $100/year fee as a  
significant
issue.  Most do not have a significant issue with the idea of an RSA  
which
preserves their status quo.  I think both are feasible and I believe  
that
is what the majority of the ARIN community supports.  Further, I believe
that support for that includes the idea that both of those things should
be voluntary on the part of the legacy holder, although there are some
who support a policy of terminating WHOIS and RDNS services for
legacy holders who do not sign up within some time period.

Frankly, I'd oppose the idea of terminating such services.

As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very premature  
and
unnecessary.  I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed or get
buy-in from IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe
has theoretical control of said address space.

Owen

On Oct 10, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Dean Anderson wrote:

> Some legacy's have emailed me off-list with interest in setting up a
> legal defense fund, and to investigate the idea of forming a new
> registry to handle legacy assignments.  I've started the work on  
> forming
> the defense fund. Legacy's can mail me directly for details.
>
> 		--Dean
>
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the  
> ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact  
> the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Wed Oct 10 14:33:57 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:33:57 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101126200.17965-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4074159F3@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

Dean said, regarding ARIN's support of NANOG:

> It is a quite limited interaction, benefiting a very small 
> number of ISPs. Its is unfair to the vast bulk of other ISPs 
> who don't participate in Nanog.
> 
> You didn't address why you gave such a comparatively large 
> amount to such a small organization.

I have been reminded that the original intent was to support
the RADB, which was supported by the community.  Later, the
intent changed to support webcasting meetings, so ARIN 
community members could participate.

It seems to me that the benefits of having a forum for 
Internet operators is of enormous community benefit.

> > More people go to NANOG than ARIN.  When we have joint meetings, we 
> > get more attendees at the ARIN meeting, and more of them 
> are attending 
> > for the first time.
> 
> And how many of those people are likely to become ARIN 
> members? How many are even the whois contacts for their companies?

ARIN Public Policy meetings are for the public.  They are 
open to everyone.  

> > Most people who attend the ARIN meeting or both meetings 
> tell us that 
> > they like having joint meetings.
> 
> I'm sure the Nanog people say that. Nanog attendence has 
> dramatically increased after joint meetings with ARIN.

I was referring to statistics reported by ARIN's Member
Services, and the participant feedback we get after
ARIN meetings.

> > We don't hold both ARIN meetings jointly with NANOG.  We 
> can run joint 
> > meetings with other organizations, if you (the community) and they 
> > (the other organization) wish.
> 
> I'll see what I can arrange. I can arrange a lot more if 
> you'll donate $50,000 to other organizations as well. 
 
Make a case to the community and Board.  We're not a charity,
but we do support the advancement of the Internet through
information and educational outreach.

Lee


From Ron at Cleven.com  Wed Oct 10 14:58:45 2007
From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:58:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710091308110.17384-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710091308110.17384-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <470D20E5.5050808@Cleven.com>



> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Ron Cleven wrote:
> 
> 
>>                   Legacy's have as much right to monetize
>>                   these resources as you do.
>>
>>Wow!  So THIS is what this discussion is about?  MIT, et al, are going 
>>to start selling all the IPV4 space they aren't using?  Are they going 
>>to sell them off to individuals or back to ARIN?
> 
> 
> No, MIT is not going to 'sell off space'. Rather, certain persons want
> to steal some legacy space so they can make money off of that space.  
> But MIT or other legacy holders have the same rights as e.g. BT to make
> money off of it.  MIT has as much fundamental right to run an internet
> service as BT does.

So, MIT needs all this IP space to run a REALLLLLLLY big ISP at some 
time in the future?  That makes sense.  When were they planning on 
starting that?  What kind of idiot do you take me for?  You will have to 
enlighten all of us about who those "certain persons" are who want to 
"steal" legacy space to make money off it.  And please enlighten all of 
us specifically about how all these thieves are going to make their 
money.  I certainly have no way to directly benefit from such a change.

The idea of changing the ARIN charges to be scaled directly based upon 
IP space has NOTHING directly to do with legacy IP holders.  It is 
purely to ensure responsible allocation of IPV4 space now and in the 
future.  EVERYONE (not just those poooooor legacy holders) would be 
equally incented to conserve IPV4 space.  I don't know and don't care 
whether such a change would increase or decrease my annual dues.


> 
>>Gee, if ARIN has nothing in its charter relating to responsible 
>>delegation of IPV4 space, it really should have.  
> 
> 
> There is no relation to responsible delegation, here. It is purely a 
> 'land grab'. 
> 
> But ironically, the many of the same people that want to steal the space
> from legacy's also want to avoid rationing in order to prevent total
> depletion in 3 years. 
> 
> 
>>Finally, if ARIN does not have the legal authority to update its fee 
>>structures to incentify the preservation and responsible delegation of 
>>IPV4 space, then it is time to get Congress involved.  You can parse 
>>statements by attorneys all day long, but this is a no-brainer.
> 
> 
> The legacy space, is by definition, delegated by the government with no
> strings attached before ARIN existed.  As the lawyer said, an Act to
> take that back probably isn't even constitutional.
> 

I must have missed that clause about IP space in my constitutional 
studies.  Was this a freedom of speech issue?  Or does it somehow relate 
  to gun control?  I am frankly NEVER impressed by lawyers claiming "It 
is unconstitutional!".  Congress is perpetually undoing stupid things 
they have done in the past.  This is no different.


> Cost isn't a real issue, but it is frequently cited.  There isn't much
> cost associated with legacy space: infrequent changes to registration
> records, often no swip.  The whois service for legacy assignments is a
> service that non-legacy's want, and non-legacy's want in-addr for legacy
> space.  ARIN took on that insignificant burden for the opportunity and
> privilege of running the registry.  Cost isn't a legitimate issue.
> 

What?  What does the cost to supply "whois" service have to do with a 
change in the ARIN fee structure to encourage responsible usage of IP 
space?  NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!

The bottom line is that if ARIN members were charged annual fees 
directly proportional to their IP space size, then I can guarantee you 
that a whole lot of ISP's (and other entities, some of which are legacy 
holders) would start looking really critically at how they are using 
their IP space.  And lots of them would suddenly find really creative 
ways to reduce their usage of IPV4 space.  Maybe even some of them would 
start to consider IPV6.  Hence, all this discussion about whether legacy 
holders have enough space to make this change worthwhile is totally 
silly.  IT IS NOT ABOUT LEGACY IP HOLDERS.  It is all about conservation 
of IPV4 across the board, and making that entire process self-policing.


> There aren't any legitimate issues whatsoever. 
> 
> Its just a simple theft of resources from a group that isn't well
> represented on ARIN ppml, on the false premise of anarchy and lack of 
> rights.
> 
> ARIN has plenty of authority over the all of the space delegated by IANA
> since 1996.  There isn't much Legacy space, but people want to steal it 
> anyway.
> 
> 		--Dean
> 
> 
> 



From tom at lanline.com  Wed Oct 10 15:33:53 2007
From: tom at lanline.com (Thomas Leonard)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:33:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <470D20E5.5050808@Cleven.com>
Message-ID: <200710101933.l9AJXvW26143@mail.lanline.com>

Ron, 

Bravo.  You hit it right on the head.

Again, bravo.  


Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500 
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:59 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?



> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Ron Cleven wrote:
> 
> 
>>                   Legacy's have as much right to monetize
>>                   these resources as you do.
>>
>>Wow!  So THIS is what this discussion is about?  MIT, et al, are going 
>>to start selling all the IPV4 space they aren't using?  Are they going 
>>to sell them off to individuals or back to ARIN?
> 
> 
> No, MIT is not going to 'sell off space'. Rather, certain persons want
> to steal some legacy space so they can make money off of that space.  
> But MIT or other legacy holders have the same rights as e.g. BT to make
> money off of it.  MIT has as much fundamental right to run an internet
> service as BT does.

So, MIT needs all this IP space to run a REALLLLLLLY big ISP at some 
time in the future?  That makes sense.  When were they planning on 
starting that?  What kind of idiot do you take me for?  You will have to 
enlighten all of us about who those "certain persons" are who want to 
"steal" legacy space to make money off it.  And please enlighten all of 
us specifically about how all these thieves are going to make their 
money.  I certainly have no way to directly benefit from such a change.

The idea of changing the ARIN charges to be scaled directly based upon 
IP space has NOTHING directly to do with legacy IP holders.  It is 
purely to ensure responsible allocation of IPV4 space now and in the 
future.  EVERYONE (not just those poooooor legacy holders) would be 
equally incented to conserve IPV4 space.  I don't know and don't care 
whether such a change would increase or decrease my annual dues.


> 
>>Gee, if ARIN has nothing in its charter relating to responsible 
>>delegation of IPV4 space, it really should have.  
> 
> 
> There is no relation to responsible delegation, here. It is purely a 
> 'land grab'. 
> 
> But ironically, the many of the same people that want to steal the space
> from legacy's also want to avoid rationing in order to prevent total
> depletion in 3 years. 
> 
> 
>>Finally, if ARIN does not have the legal authority to update its fee 
>>structures to incentify the preservation and responsible delegation of 
>>IPV4 space, then it is time to get Congress involved.  You can parse 
>>statements by attorneys all day long, but this is a no-brainer.
> 
> 
> The legacy space, is by definition, delegated by the government with no
> strings attached before ARIN existed.  As the lawyer said, an Act to
> take that back probably isn't even constitutional.
> 

I must have missed that clause about IP space in my constitutional 
studies.  Was this a freedom of speech issue?  Or does it somehow relate 
  to gun control?  I am frankly NEVER impressed by lawyers claiming "It 
is unconstitutional!".  Congress is perpetually undoing stupid things 
they have done in the past.  This is no different.


> Cost isn't a real issue, but it is frequently cited.  There isn't much
> cost associated with legacy space: infrequent changes to registration
> records, often no swip.  The whois service for legacy assignments is a
> service that non-legacy's want, and non-legacy's want in-addr for legacy
> space.  ARIN took on that insignificant burden for the opportunity and
> privilege of running the registry.  Cost isn't a legitimate issue.
> 

What?  What does the cost to supply "whois" service have to do with a 
change in the ARIN fee structure to encourage responsible usage of IP 
space?  NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!

The bottom line is that if ARIN members were charged annual fees 
directly proportional to their IP space size, then I can guarantee you 
that a whole lot of ISP's (and other entities, some of which are legacy 
holders) would start looking really critically at how they are using 
their IP space.  And lots of them would suddenly find really creative 
ways to reduce their usage of IPV4 space.  Maybe even some of them would 
start to consider IPV6.  Hence, all this discussion about whether legacy 
holders have enough space to make this change worthwhile is totally 
silly.  IT IS NOT ABOUT LEGACY IP HOLDERS.  It is all about conservation 
of IPV4 across the board, and making that entire process self-policing.


> There aren't any legitimate issues whatsoever. 
> 
> Its just a simple theft of resources from a group that isn't well
> represented on ARIN ppml, on the false premise of anarchy and lack of 
> rights.
> 
> ARIN has plenty of authority over the all of the space delegated by IANA
> since 1996.  There isn't much Legacy space, but people want to steal it 
> anyway.
> 
> 		--Dean
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.





From dean at av8.net  Wed Oct 10 15:35:02 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry
In-Reply-To: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101517370.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Defense from what?

Defense from ARIN, if it decides there are no legal obligations to 
Legacies.

> As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very premature
> and unnecessary.

That's why we investigate the option. Its never premature to investigate
the options.

Having a separate registry certainly solves the problem of non-legacy's
continuing to want to impose new rules on Legacies.  And it solves the
continuing problem of non-legacy's complaining about having to pay for
legacy services.

Some of ARINs resources would be transferred to the Legacy Registry in
order to severe and terminate ARIN's obligations, probably a significant
chunk of ARIN surplus, whois software, etc.  An annuity on say,
$15million, would probably fund a Legacy registry forever, since the
Legacy's don't impose a significant burden on changes and there are no
new legacy's.  Its a fixed cost operation. In-addr.arpa is already
merged from several registry's.  And then provide electronic whois
services.

It looks like a pretty good idea so far.

> I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed or get buy-in from
> IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe has theoretical
> control of said address space.

If the Legacy community decides it wants to have its own registry. I
don't know why IANA (a DoC function performed under contract by ICANN)
or DoC would object to their wishes.



		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   





From mksmith at adhost.com  Wed Oct 10 15:52:09 2007
From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:52:09 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101517370.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
References: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101517370.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F0E6@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>

Hello Dean:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:35 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Public Policy Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy
> Registry
> 
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> > Defense from what?
> 
> Defense from ARIN, if it decides there are no legal obligations to
> Legacies.
> 
I thought we had already established that there is no legal obligation
today, let alone moving forward.  The services provided by ARIN for
legacy address holders are based upon a "moral" obligation agreed upon
in principal when ARIN was first formed.

> > As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very
premature
> > and unnecessary.
> 
> That's why we investigate the option. Its never premature to
> investigate
> the options.
> 
> Having a separate registry certainly solves the problem of
non-legacy's
> continuing to want to impose new rules on Legacies.  And it solves the
> continuing problem of non-legacy's complaining about having to pay for
> legacy services.
> 
> Some of ARINs resources would be transferred to the Legacy Registry in
> order to severe and terminate ARIN's obligations, probably a
> significant
> chunk of ARIN surplus, whois software, etc.  An annuity on say,
> $15million, would probably fund a Legacy registry forever, since the
> Legacy's don't impose a significant burden on changes and there are no
> new legacy's.  Its a fixed cost operation. In-addr.arpa is already
> merged from several registry's.  And then provide electronic whois
> services.
> 
> It looks like a pretty good idea so far.
> 

If a separate registry was formed, it seems to me that the funding for
this registry would be accounted for from within the membership, i.e.
the legacy address holders participating in the registry.  I can't think
of a reason why ARIN would be responsible for these costs.  As a Member,
it concerns me that the legacy holders only pay $100.00 into the
coffers, although I understand the reasoning.  Having my contributed
dollars allocated to a registry that I will never use doesn't seem like
an appropriate use of funds.  Then again, you don't approve of the 50k
going to NANOG and I do, so to each his own.

> > I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed or get buy-in from
> > IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe has theoretical
> > control of said address space.
> 
> If the Legacy community decides it wants to have its own registry. I
> don't know why IANA (a DoC function performed under contract by ICANN)
> or DoC would object to their wishes.
> 

Only one way to know.

Regards,

Mike


From dean at av8.net  Wed Oct 10 15:53:02 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:53:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4074159F3@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101536070.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Howard, W. Lee wrote:

> Dean said, regarding ARIN's support of NANOG:
> 
> > It is a quite limited interaction, benefiting a very small 
> > number of ISPs. Its is unfair to the vast bulk of other ISPs 
> > who don't participate in Nanog.
> > 
> > You didn't address why you gave such a comparatively large 
> > amount to such a small organization.
> 
> I have been reminded that the original intent was to support the RADB,
> which was supported by the community.  Later, the intent changed to
> support webcasting meetings, so ARIN community members could
> participate.

RADB is a Merit project. RADB is not Nanog and has nothing to do with
Nanog. So are you telling me that you meant to give $50,000 to Merit,
but mistakenly gave it to Nanog instead?  If so, then it seems you
should get the funds back from Nanog, and give them to Merit for the
RADB project.

> It seems to me that the benefits of having a forum for Internet
> operators is of enormous community benefit.

Nanog doesn't provide such a forum.  There have been some attempts at
reforming Nanog. Look for nanog-reform.org on the wayback machine. I
have a copy, if you can't find it.

Possibly having an open forum would be a good thing. PPML seems to serve
that purpose better than Nanog.

> > > More people go to NANOG than ARIN.  When we have joint meetings,
> > > we get more attendees at the ARIN meeting, and more of them are
> > > attending for the first time.
> > 
> > And how many of those people are likely to become ARIN members? How
> > many are even the whois contacts for their companies?
> 
> ARIN Public Policy meetings are for the public.  They are open to
> everyone.

But 'everyone' isn't in the interest of ARIN spending its funds. ARIN
funds have to go to a specific ARIN purpose.  Nanog isn't open to
everyone, anyway. Nanog also gets more meeting attendees from ARIN.
Further, if the benefit to ARIN is increased fees from meeting
attendance, then that is far outweighed by giving $50,000 to Nanog.
Nanog is the net beneficiary, not ARIN. This dubious at best. I wonder
if this isn't an improper scheme to transfer ARIN assets to Nanog.

> > > Most people who attend the ARIN meeting or both meetings tell us
> > > that they like having joint meetings.
> > 
> > I'm sure the Nanog people say that. Nanog attendence has
> > dramatically increased after joint meetings with ARIN.
> 
> I was referring to statistics reported by ARIN's Member Services, and
> the participant feedback we get after ARIN meetings.

There is (obviously) some overlap between ARIN attendees and Nanog
attendees.  My point is that this group probably reports more favorable
feedback about Nanog, than do the rest of ARIN members.

> > > We don't hold both ARIN meetings jointly with NANOG.  We can run
> > > joint meetings with other organizations, if you (the community)
> > > and they (the other organization) wish.
> > 
> > I'll see what I can arrange. I can arrange a lot more if you'll
> > donate $50,000 to other organizations as well.
>
> Make a case to the community and Board.

What case did Nanog make to the community and Board?

> We're not a charity, but we do support the advancement of the Internet
> through information and educational outreach.

The objective facts show that Nanog has been involved in deception and
disinformation campaigns, which seems to disqualify Nanog from
"information and educational outreach" See
http://www.iadl.org/nanog/nanog-story.html
		--Dean


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From dlw+arin at tellme.com  Wed Oct 10 16:10:15 2007
From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:10:15 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101536070.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4074159F3@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101536070.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
Message-ID: <20071010201015.GK23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com>

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 03:53:02PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> But 'everyone' isn't in the interest of ARIN spending its funds. ARIN
> funds have to go to a specific ARIN purpose.  Nanog isn't open to
> everyone, anyway. Nanog also gets more meeting attendees from ARIN.
> Further, if the benefit to ARIN is increased fees from meeting
> attendance, then that is far outweighed by giving $50,000 to Nanog.
> Nanog is the net beneficiary, not ARIN. This dubious at best. I wonder
> if this isn't an improper scheme to transfer ARIN assets to Nanog.

I, for one, think that $50,000 for NANOG is entirely reasonable, as it
does provide a forum for operators to discuss technical issues.  The
openness of that forum may be a subject for opinion/discussion
(although I'm fine with it), but that's not the point.

That's my opinion, but I suspect it's broadly shared by many people
involved in ARIN issues.  I think you're looking for an issue that most
simply don't see.
 
> > > > Most people who attend the ARIN meeting or both meetings tell us
> > > > that they like having joint meetings.
> > > 
> > > I'm sure the Nanog people say that. Nanog attendence has
> > > dramatically increased after joint meetings with ARIN.
> > 
> > I was referring to statistics reported by ARIN's Member Services, and
> > the participant feedback we get after ARIN meetings.
> 
> There is (obviously) some overlap between ARIN attendees and Nanog
> attendees.  My point is that this group probably reports more favorable
> feedback about Nanog, than do the rest of ARIN members.

Again, I think you miss the point.  Many of us would go to both
meetings anyway.  Co-locating them simplifies travel arrangements,
which makes it possible for more people (and inclusion is the point,
yes?) to attend *both* events.  That's a good thing, unless you wish to
identify anyone involved with NANOG as inherently bad, in which case
their attendence at ARIN is a problem.  I don't see it that way,
though, so I think you are again looking for a divisive issue where
none exists.

> The objective facts show that Nanog has been involved in deception and
> disinformation campaigns, which seems to disqualify Nanog from
> "information and educational outreach" See
> http://www.iadl.org/nanog/nanog-story.html

Those "objective" facts are very prone to subjective interpretation.  I
don't think the world is entirely hunky-dory, but I don't think there's
quite the vast evil cartel that you seem to see.  Sorry, but your
conclusions are not objective.

-David


From mike at mathbox.com  Wed Oct 10 16:14:47 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:14:47 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?
In-Reply-To: <470D20E5.5050808@Cleven.com>
Message-ID: <200710101614444.SM03560@mikesplace>

Ron,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:59 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel 
> statement on Legacy assignments?
> 
> 
> 
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Ron Cleven wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>                   Legacy's have as much right to monetize
> >>                   these resources as you do.
> >>
> >>Wow!  So THIS is what this discussion is about?  MIT, et 
> al, are going 
> >>to start selling all the IPV4 space they aren't using?  Are 
> they going 
> >>to sell them off to individuals or back to ARIN?
> > 
> > 
> > No, MIT is not going to 'sell off space'. Rather, certain 
> persons want
> > to steal some legacy space so they can make money off of 
> that space.  
> > But MIT or other legacy holders have the same rights as 
> e.g. BT to make
> > money off of it.  MIT has as much fundamental right to run 
> an internet
> > service as BT does.
> 
> So, MIT needs all this IP space to run a REALLLLLLLY big ISP at some 
> time in the future?  That makes sense.  When were they planning on 
> starting that?  What kind of idiot do you take me for?  You 
> will have to 
> enlighten all of us about who those "certain persons" are who want to 
> "steal" legacy space to make money off it.  And please 
> enlighten all of 
> us specifically about how all these thieves are going to make their 
> money.  I certainly have no way to directly benefit from such 
> a change.
> 
> The idea of changing the ARIN charges to be scaled directly 
> based upon 
> IP space has NOTHING directly to do with legacy IP holders.  It is 
> purely to ensure responsible allocation of IPV4 space now and in the 
> future.  EVERYONE (not just those poooooor legacy holders) would be 
> equally incented to conserve IPV4 space.  I don't know and don't care 
> whether such a change would increase or decrease my annual dues.
> 
> 
> > 
> >>Gee, if ARIN has nothing in its charter relating to responsible 
> >>delegation of IPV4 space, it really should have.  
> > 
> > 
> > There is no relation to responsible delegation, here. It is 
> purely a 
> > 'land grab'. 
> > 
> > But ironically, the many of the same people that want to 
> steal the space
> > from legacy's also want to avoid rationing in order to prevent total
> > depletion in 3 years. 
> > 
> > 
> >>Finally, if ARIN does not have the legal authority to 
> update its fee 
> >>structures to incentify the preservation and responsible 
> delegation of 
> >>IPV4 space, then it is time to get Congress involved.  You 
> can parse 
> >>statements by attorneys all day long, but this is a no-brainer.
> > 
> > 
> > The legacy space, is by definition, delegated by the 
> government with no
> > strings attached before ARIN existed.  As the lawyer said, an Act to
> > take that back probably isn't even constitutional.
> > 
> 
> I must have missed that clause about IP space in my constitutional 
> studies.  Was this a freedom of speech issue?  Or does it 
> somehow relate 
>   to gun control?  I am frankly NEVER impressed by lawyers 
> claiming "It 
> is unconstitutional!".  Congress is perpetually undoing stupid things 
> they have done in the past.  This is no different.
> 
> 
> > Cost isn't a real issue, but it is frequently cited.  There 
> isn't much
> > cost associated with legacy space: infrequent changes to 
> registration
> > records, often no swip.  The whois service for legacy 
> assignments is a
> > service that non-legacy's want, and non-legacy's want 
> in-addr for legacy
> > space.  ARIN took on that insignificant burden for the 
> opportunity and
> > privilege of running the registry.  Cost isn't a legitimate issue.
> > 
> 
> What?  What does the cost to supply "whois" service have to do with a 
> change in the ARIN fee structure to encourage responsible usage of IP 
> space?  NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The bottom line is that if ARIN members were charged annual fees 
> directly proportional to their IP space size, then I can 
> guarantee you 
> that a whole lot of ISP's (and other entities, some of which 
> are legacy 
> holders) would start looking really critically at how they are using 
> their IP space.  And lots of them would suddenly find really creative 
> ways to reduce their usage of IPV4 space.  Maybe even some of 

There are approximately 73 X-Large members. A /13 has 2048 /24. They pay for
149,504 /24s. Given from ARIN data that X-Large holds over 79% of /24. Given
that my addition of 1,148,855  ARIN allocated /24 since 1999 is
approximately close, then X-Large are holding approximately 907,595 /24.
That is 758,091 _free_ /24, or approximately 100,000 /24 per X-Large.

It requires only 3 (out of 73) of the mathematical average 100,000 _free_
/24 to exceed the total of all other /24 held by all other ISP members of
ARIN.

Those same X-Large use those /24 to defend their turf in competition. I have
seen it and I have heard about it. It is easy to give something away when it
does not cost you anything. Before someone jumps in to refute this, how do
you know they do not do this? What, you audited 900,000 /24?

I am really, really tired of people telling me that IP addresses have no
value, therefore the community pool of IP resources has no value. Regardless
of where IPV6 stands, when the V4 pool runs out, we will see how much value
an IP address has. It will not be $0.00.

> them would 
> start to consider IPV6.  Hence, all this discussion about 
> whether legacy 
> holders have enough space to make this change worthwhile is totally 
> silly.  IT IS NOT ABOUT LEGACY IP HOLDERS.  It is all about 
> conservation 
> of IPV4 across the board, and making that entire process 
> self-policing.
> 
> 
> > There aren't any legitimate issues whatsoever. 
> > 
> > Its just a simple theft of resources from a group that isn't well
> > represented on ARIN ppml, on the false premise of anarchy 
> and lack of 
> > rights.
> > 
> > ARIN has plenty of authority over the all of the space 
> delegated by IANA
> > since 1996.  There isn't much Legacy space, but people want 
> to steal it 
> > anyway.
> > 
> > 		--Dean
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) 




From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Wed Oct 10 16:20:53 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:20:53 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101536070.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407415B35@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

> RADB is a Merit project. 

The budget line item says "Merit/NANOG Meeting Support"
http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html

Lee


From dean at av8.net  Wed Oct 10 16:22:22 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:22:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry
In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F0E6@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101608060.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> > Defense from ARIN, if it decides there are no legal obligations to
> > Legacies.
> > 
> I thought we had already established that there is no legal obligation
> today, let alone moving forward.  The services provided by ARIN for
> legacy address holders are based upon a "moral" obligation agreed upon
> in principal when ARIN was first formed.

No, that hasn't been established. Your view has been asserted by people
without even a formal legal opinion on the subject. After an opinion is
obtained, supposing there is still serious disagreement, one can still
challenge that opinion through suit for declarative judgment.  There is
a long way to go to 'established'.

> If a separate registry was formed, it seems to me that the funding for
> this registry would be accounted for from within the membership, i.e.
> the legacy address holders participating in the registry.  I can't
> think of a reason why ARIN would be responsible for these costs.  

After separation, it could be that ARIN would indeed have no further
responsibilty for Legacy costs.  However, ARIN was founded on the
agreement that it would provide these services. ARIN has to buyout that
agreement and disburse some of the benefits it obtained to the new 
Registry that assumes ARIN's former responsibilites.

But the rest of the details are up the legacy's through offlist
discussion, and the legacy's would be the sole members of the new
registry.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From Ron at Cleven.com  Wed Oct 10 16:53:57 2007
From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:53:57 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
	assignments?
In-Reply-To: <200710101614444.SM03560@mikesplace>
References: <200710101614444.SM03560@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <470D3BE4.4060904@Cleven.com>

Mike,

Thanks for "doing the math".  Yes, we are a small ISP and we have 
frequently had to compete with the "big guys" who play fast and loose 
with their IP addresses in order to kill competition.  When we first 
started, we were using IP space provided by our upstream providers. 
When we finally reached a large enough size such that we needed our own 
ARIN allocation, it took MONTHS to get our upstream providers to reclaim 
our old IP addresses.  One of them couldn't even tell us what their 
process was to do so.  While that is anecdotal, it fairly illustrates 
how large players do not bother to conserve IPV4 space.  If they were 
paying for it, you can be sure they would.

I am really bummed that these basic mathematical principles and the 
basic laws of economics seem lost on many of the contributors to this 
discussion.  I assume the vocal ones are protecting their own legacy 
turf or their own position as large entrenched ISP's (or perhaps they 
simply have lots of IP's and they don't feel like properly organizing 
their networks).  It would be interesting to have full disclosure in 
that regard.

Thanks again,

Ron


> There are approximately 73 X-Large members. A /13 has 2048 /24. They pay for
> 149,504 /24s. Given from ARIN data that X-Large holds over 79% of /24. Given
> that my addition of 1,148,855  ARIN allocated /24 since 1999 is
> approximately close, then X-Large are holding approximately 907,595 /24.
> That is 758,091 _free_ /24, or approximately 100,000 /24 per X-Large.
> 
> It requires only 3 (out of 73) of the mathematical average 100,000 _free_
> /24 to exceed the total of all other /24 held by all other ISP members of
> ARIN.
> 
> Those same X-Large use those /24 to defend their turf in competition. I have
> seen it and I have heard about it. It is easy to give something away when it
> does not cost you anything. Before someone jumps in to refute this, how do
> you know they do not do this? What, you audited 900,000 /24?
> 
> I am really, really tired of people telling me that IP addresses have no
> value, therefore the community pool of IP resources has no value. Regardless
> of where IPV6 stands, when the V4 pool runs out, we will see how much value
> an IP address has. It will not be $0.00.
> 


From Ron at Cleven.com  Wed Oct 10 17:14:48 2007
From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:14:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101553180.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101553180.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
Message-ID: <470D40C8.7010203@Cleven.com>


>>So, MIT needs all this IP space to run a REALLLLLLLY big ISP at some 
>>time in the future?  That makes sense.  
> 
> 
> That's _entirely_ up to MIT. That's the point that you seem to not get.  
> That's what it means to have unencumbered rights.
>

How about that!  If you Google "red herring", you will, amazingly, find 
your description of MIT's ISP plans.  I stand corrected.

> 
>>I must have missed that clause about IP space in my constitutional
>>studies.
> 
> 
> I'm not certain about the formulation Mr. Ryan was referring to.  
> However, I'd guess the government probably can't pass an ex-post-facto
> law to remove a permanent license previously granted by the government.  
> But it was Mr. Ryan that noted this is probably not constitutional, not
> me. Why it isn't constitutional is not really my argument or my
> expertise.

It is really handy that you conveniently ignore the 
plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face benefit of per-IP ARIN fees in your 
responses, choosing rather to argue in favor of some dumb congressional 
decision made last century that did not take into account the growth of 
the Internet.  How could those visionaries in Congress who now take 
credit for the Internet not have seen that one coming?

So you are now saying that the consitutional argument is not really your 
argument?   I guess that means you don't have to defend it, but you can 
still quote it when it serves your purpose?  I get it now.



From dean at av8.net  Wed Oct 10 17:43:17 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407415B35@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101742440.3852-100000@cirrus.av8.net>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Howard, W. Lee wrote:

> > RADB is a Merit project. 
> 
> The budget line item says "Merit/NANOG Meeting Support"
> http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html

Merit and Nanog are separate entities.  Which one was supported?

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From mksmith at adhost.com  Wed Oct 10 17:50:43 2007
From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:50:43 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101742440.3852-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407415B35@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101742440.3852-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F12A@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>

Hello Dean:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:43 PM
> To: Howard, W. Lee
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
> assignments?
> 
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> 
> > > RADB is a Merit project.
> >
> > The budget line item says "Merit/NANOG Meeting Support"
> > http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
> 
> Merit and Nanog are separate entities.  Which one was supported?
> 
> 		--Dean
> 
I think the syntax is valid, even today.  If you look at:

http://www.nanog.org/charter.html

the relationship between NANOG and Merit is clearly defined.

Regards,

Mike


From Ron at Cleven.com  Wed Oct 10 18:37:15 2007
From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:37:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101744020.3852-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101744020.3852-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
Message-ID: <470D541A.9040806@Cleven.com>


> 
>>>That's _entirely_ up to MIT. That's the point that you seem to not get.  
>>>That's what it means to have unencumbered rights.
>>>
>>
>>How about that!  If you Google "red herring", you will, amazingly, find 
>>your description of MIT's ISP plans.  I stand corrected.
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about MIT's plans, and I haven't said anything
> about MIT's plans. Whether those plans are a "red herring" isn't any
> else's business.  Neither you, nor I, nor ARIN have any say in that.
> 

YOU are the one who brought up the idea that somehow legacy holders 
should be able to "monetize" their IP holdings.  Since that seemed 
far-fetched, I pursued that point, asking if that meant they would be 
selling their IP space to someone.  Your response was "no" they would 
not sell it, but they might start an ISP.  That, too, seemed pretty 
far-fetched and totally irrelevant when one contemplates the size of 
their IP space.  So, I pursued that point, too.  Now, I guess you don't 
want to talk about it at all, because it is, after all MIT's business. 
Ok, what's a few million IP addresses between friends, anyway?  I'm sure 
MIT really needs to assign IPV4 addresses to all their Coke machines and 
doorknobs.

> 
>>It is really handy that you conveniently ignore the
>>plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face benefit of per-IP ARIN fees in your
> 
> 
> The benefit of your plan has no bearing whatsoever on the legality of
> your plan. If Legacy's have unencumbered rights, then you have no legal
> basis to impose _any_ plan, no matter how beneficial it might seem to
> you or others.

That seems like a REALLLLLLLLLLLY big "If" to me, and well worth having 
lawyers pursue aggressively (you already stated that was not your 
expertise, so pardon me if I don't take your legal opinion as gospel). 
However, for discussion purposes, let us assume a worst-case scenario. 
That is, let us assume that we cannot find educable Congressmen or 
judges to overturn those legacy "rights".

Even under those ridiculous circumstances, ARIN could switch all other 
non-legacy IPV4 holdings to scale their annual dues directly 
proportional to the size of their IP space.  Once that "price" per IP is 
established, they could act as a broker for legacy-holders to "monetize" 
(gee, what a great word you used) their IPV4 holdings.  That is, legacy 
holders could retire their IP space for the same price as new IP space 
is issued for.  It would be amusing to see all of the legacy holders 
(and big ISP's) line up to sell their IP space (first-come, 
first-served, boys).  The cost to ARIN would be purely an administrative 
one, because ARIN would only purchase blocks based upon need.  And 
because the net effect would be a self-policing system, their total 
administrative burden would be reduced.



From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Oct 10 18:48:13 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:48:13 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and
	LegacyRegistry
In-Reply-To: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOGECCHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Owen DeLong
>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:21 AM
>To: Dean Anderson
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and
>LegacyRegistry
>
>
>Defense from what?
>
>While there are a few people on the PPML and arin-discuss who have
>suggested various forms of fee structures and such, but, there hasn't
>been anything even close to consensus in favor of such a thing.
>

Such a group of legacy holders wouldn't even be able to gain consensus
to create an RFP for 5,000 tinfoil hats.

>I believe that the majority of ARIN members support the idea of outreach
>and desire to build a positive relationship with legacy holders working
>towards a situation where legacy holders join the ARIN fold and there
>is no longer a need for such a distinction.
>

A lot of legacy holders have BOTH legacy assignments and non-legacy
assignments.  And ANY legacy holder that has ANY IPv6 also has a foot
in both sides.

>Most legacy holders I talk to do not see the $100/year fee as a  
>significant
>issue.  Most do not have a significant issue with the idea of an RSA  
>which
>preserves their status quo.  I think both are feasible and I believe  
>that
>is what the majority of the ARIN community supports.

I do not agree.  I think that the majority of the community supports
legacy holder status on IPv4 ONLY.

I believe some of this smoke and mirrors is an attempt by certain people
to get legacy status applied to "IP numbering" in general, rather than
"IPv4 IP numbering" that is why they use such imprecise language all the
time, constantly blurring the distinction between IPv4 and IPv6 numbering.

If you look at ALL of Dean's responses to the subject you will find that
he NEVER uses the precise terms "IPv4 IP numbering" and "IPv6 numbering"
when referring to legacy holders.  When people point this out he ignores
it most of the time, the few times he responds it's along the line that
the definition of a legacy holder is an IPv4 holder - conveniently ignoring
that all the historical literature he's basing his arguments on is 
pre-IPv6 and thus DOES NOT draw a distinction either.

>
>As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very premature  
>and
>unnecessary.  I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed or get
>buy-in from IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe
>has theoretical control of said address space.
>

I really think the whole thing is preposterous.  I can think of many 
reasons that infighting, lack of legal jurisdiction in different regions,
the fact that many legacy holders would have to start paying twice -
once for IPv6 resources to ARIN and once to this alternate registry,
and the fact that an alternate would have no support from the existing
governing structure, would doom such an effort.  Keep in mind that
an alternate registry couldn't force ARIN to update it's whois - and
ARIN will not replace legacy WHOIS records to allow legacy numbers to
be sold to a new entity, that's against current policy.  The more you
think about it the more silly it becomes.

Just because it's possible to do something doesen't mean it's ever
going to happen.  I think Dean is confusing the possible with the
practical.

Ted


From mksmith at adhost.com  Wed Oct 10 18:52:59 2007
From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:52:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385E21@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
References: <779ED8D8-2DB6-4D48-A1E5-BB7C87C08881@mia.net>
	<369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407385E21@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F143@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>

Hello Howard:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Howard, W. Lee
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:24 PM
> To: Jeremy Anthony Kinsey; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
> 
> > However, it has been mentioned several times here that we are
> > NOT buying IP space, but rather maintenance of that space.
> > All things being equal, I would like to assume that it costs
> > more to maintain a /13 allocation than a /20. That said,
> > the pricing matrix is greatly flawed.
> 
> More precisely, you would say it costs more per address to
> maintain a /13 allocation than a /20.  That is a different
> assumption than we have used in the past; it is healthy to
> question our assumptions.
> 
> We've heard from a fair number of people, but I'd like to
> hear from more.
> 
> Lee

I think a new discussion about fees is relevant, but I have a concern,
perhaps unfounded.  Let's say someone proposes a new cost structure (per
IP, beads and baubles, whatever).  That policy is then sent to the PPML
list for review.  My question is, who is reviewing it at that point?
More specifically, what is the distribution on the PPML list of the
various customer types by ARIN size?  My concern is that the list is
mostly comprised of larger players who have a better understanding of
the process and the importance of participation, while the smaller folks
are underrepresented.  Thus, the conversation is dominated by those
larger players, not because of any nefarious underpinnings or sleight of
hand, just because that's who happens to be on the list.

Is there any way to get statistics from ARIN about list participation as
it relates to membership?  It would be a good prelude to more outreach
if, as I suspect, the smaller provider is statistically underrepresented
on the list.

Regards,

Mike


From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Oct 10 18:54:07 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:54:07 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <470D541A.9040806@Cleven.com>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOKECCHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:37 PM
>To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>
>
>

>
>Even under those ridiculous circumstances, ARIN could switch all other
>non-legacy IPV4 holdings to scale their annual dues directly
>proportional to the size of their IP space.  Once that "price" per IP is
>established, they could act as a broker for legacy-holders to "monetize"
>(gee, what a great word you used) their IPV4 holdings.  That is, legacy
>holders could retire their IP space for the same price as new IP space
>is issued for.  It would be amusing to see all of the legacy holders
>(and big ISP's) line up to sell their IP space (first-come,
>first-served, boys).  The cost to ARIN would be purely an administrative
>one, because ARIN would only purchase blocks based upon need.  And
>because the net effect would be a self-policing system, their total
>administrative burden would be reduced.

I'm not sure how exactly the legacy holders can start selling blocks of
IPv4 when they have assigned so much of it to coke machines and doorknobs.
;-)

I think the fundamental issue here is laziness.  The big legacy holders
don't want to hand back IPv4 not because they intend on "moneyizing it"
and not because they are going to need it in the future.  The big holders
don't want to hand it back because it would require them to expend effort
to renumber into a smaller block, AKA "efficiently utilize" it.

Ted



From mksmith at adhost.com  Wed Oct 10 18:57:32 2007
From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:57:32 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOKECCHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>
References: <470D541A.9040806@Cleven.com>
	<NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOKECCHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F144@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:54 PM
> To: Ron Cleven; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
> assignments?
> 
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:37 PM
> >To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
> >assignments?
> >
> >
> >
> 
> >
> >Even under those ridiculous circumstances, ARIN could switch all
other
> >non-legacy IPV4 holdings to scale their annual dues directly
> >proportional to the size of their IP space.  Once that "price" per IP
> is
> >established, they could act as a broker for legacy-holders to
> "monetize"
> >(gee, what a great word you used) their IPV4 holdings.  That is,
> legacy
> >holders could retire their IP space for the same price as new IP
space
> >is issued for.  It would be amusing to see all of the legacy holders
> >(and big ISP's) line up to sell their IP space (first-come,
> >first-served, boys).  The cost to ARIN would be purely an
> administrative
> >one, because ARIN would only purchase blocks based upon need.  And
> >because the net effect would be a self-policing system, their total
> >administrative burden would be reduced.
> 
> I'm not sure how exactly the legacy holders can start selling blocks
of
> IPv4 when they have assigned so much of it to coke machines and
> doorknobs.
> ;-)
mksmith$ host doorknob.apple.com
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 10 mail-in12.apple.com.
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 10 mail-in13.apple.com.
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 20 eg-mail-in2.apple.com.
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 20 eg-mail-in11.apple.com.
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 100 mail-in3.apple.com.
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 10 mail-in1.apple.com.
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 10 mail-in2.apple.com.
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 10 mail-in6.apple.com.
doorknob.apple.com mail is handled by 10 mail-in11.apple.com.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Mike


From mike at mathbox.com  Wed Oct 10 18:59:56 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:59:56 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Co-op?
Message-ID: <200710101900264.SM00828@mikesplace>

Are cooperatives banned from IP space allocation?

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) 




From sleibrand at internap.com  Wed Oct 10 19:28:00 2007
From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:28:00 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Co-op?
In-Reply-To: <200710101900264.SM00828@mikesplace>
References: <200710101900264.SM00828@mikesplace>
Message-ID: <470D6000.4050207@internap.com>

I don't believe so.  The "multiple discrete networks" section of the 
NRPM says they don't qualify for that, but I think they can qualify 
under the normal rules just like any other organization or ISP.

-Scott

Michael Thomas - Mathbox wrote:
> Are cooperatives banned from IP space allocation?
>
> Michael Thomas
> Mathbox
> 978-683-6718
> 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>   


From marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com  Wed Oct 10 19:55:29 2007
From: marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com (Azinger, Marla)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:55:29 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Co-op?
Message-ID: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A0272FA65@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt>

The last conversation I had regarding co-ops was that they can apply for address space.  The conversation went allot deeper and in many directions but the bottom line was they aren't banned but it was questionable if current policy handles it just fine or if we should be creating policy addressing that kind of request because it could be viewed as having unique dynamics.  

Sorry its not clear cut. 

And please if someone on ARIN staff can point out any show stopping hiccups they already know regarding Co-Op requests, please do.

I would also like to know.  Why do you ask that question?

Regards
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Michael Thomas -
Mathbox
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:00 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: [arin-discuss] Co-op?


Are cooperatives banned from IP space allocation?

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) 


_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From mike at mathbox.com  Wed Oct 10 20:08:44 2007
From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:08:44 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:RE:  Co-op?
In-Reply-To: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A0272FA65@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <20071010200887.SM01812@mikesplace>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Azinger, Marla [mailto:marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:55 PM
> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: SPAM-WARN:RE: [arin-discuss] Co-op?
> 
> The last conversation I had regarding co-ops was that they 
> can apply for address space.  The conversation went allot 
> deeper and in many directions but the bottom line was they 
> aren't banned but it was questionable if current policy 
> handles it just fine or if we should be creating policy 
> addressing that kind of request because it could be viewed as 
> having unique dynamics.  
> 
> Sorry its not clear cut. 
> 
> And please if someone on ARIN staff can point out any show 
> stopping hiccups they already know regarding Co-Op requests, 
> please do.
> 
> I would also like to know.  Why do you ask that question?
> 
> Regards
> Marla
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Michael Thomas -
> Mathbox
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:00 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-discuss] Co-op?
> 
> 
> Are cooperatives banned from IP space allocation?
> 
> Michael Thomas
> Mathbox
> 978-683-6718
> 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please 
> contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

If the people concerned with ARIN fee structure cannot get it changed, then
there is always the "If you cannot beat them, join them" party.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) 




From woody at pch.net  Wed Oct 10 20:10:01 2007
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:10:01 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] SPAM-WARN:Re:  ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <20071010153833.10654.qmail@hoster908.com>
References: <20071010153833.10654.qmail@hoster908.com>
Message-ID: <9C2CFE2C-909C-4F62-B1B2-2E59BE2C05FB@pch.net>


On Oct 10, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> One can see how the use of an endowment to fund the overhead costs  
> would be desirable from a long-term perspective.

Particularly as we move to an IPv6 world, in which there will be far  
fewer transactions per resource recipient.

> ...over time the expenses increased such that the endowment was  
> unable to support the expenses that it was originally intended to  
> be used for.

Another model is to define the operating budget of the organization  
as that which can be supported by the interest earnings of the  
endowment, and no more.  One way of preventing organizational bloat.

> One way that one maybe could help prevent endowment decay would be  
> for the ongoing transactional costs to contain a portion which was  
> earmarked for the endowment during the initial years of endowment  
> funding.

Yep, that was my thought.

> As you noted above separating the overhead from the transactional  
> costs can be complex and I think it would be hard to separate the  
> overhead vs. transactional costs.  I believe it could be done though.

And ultimately, it doesn't need to be done exactly...  All that's  
needed is a figure that's close enough that most people are happier  
to believe it fair than to waste their time arguing about tweaking it.

> One other concern about this funding model would be the perception  
> if someday ARIN had a "huge" endowment that was constantly growing  
> such that the annual return from the endowment greatly exceeded  
> ARIN's overhead expenses.

I think this question falls squarely within the category of solving- 
the-problems-we-wish-we-had-rather-than-the-ones-we-actually-have.

                                 -Bill



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071010/eca38c07/attachment.sig>

From dean at av8.net  Wed Oct 10 20:14:55 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F12A@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710102006290.18595-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:

> > > > RADB is a Merit project.
> > >
> > > The budget line item says "Merit/NANOG Meeting Support"
> > > http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
> > 
> > Merit and Nanog are separate entities.  Which one was supported?
> > 
> > 		--Dean
> > 
> I think the syntax is valid, even today.  If you look at:
> 
> http://www.nanog.org/charter.html
> 
> the relationship between NANOG and Merit is clearly defined.

It is quite clearly defined. Nanog is a corporation, and Merit is a
different corporation. They are separate organizations with separate
bank accounts and separate projects.  Indeed some Merit employees work
part time for Nanog. That doesn't make them the same. At most, that just
makes Merit a contributor to Nanog, and maybe not even a contributor
depending on staff arrangements.

RADB is a Merit project that is separate from Nanog.

Likewise, The LPF is separate from MIT. FSF is separate from MIT.  
However, Richard Stallman is employed by MIT. That fact doesn't make
either LPF or FSF a part of MIT.  If you mean to support the MIT
Computer Science and AI Lab, and you send the funds to the LPF, it would
be a mistake that should be corrected

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From owen at delong.com  Wed Oct 10 20:29:53 2007
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:29:53 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and Legacy Registry
In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F0E6@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
References: <86D16A98-BE5F-4215-95F7-E9B2795074BD@delong.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0710101517370.3397-100000@cirrus.av8.net>
	<17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F0E6@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
Message-ID: <C80983D9-7DE7-4BBA-968C-DC2102CED794@delong.com>

>
> If a separate registry was formed, it seems to me that the funding for
> this registry would be accounted for from within the membership, i.e.
> the legacy address holders participating in the registry.  I can't  
> think
> of a reason why ARIN would be responsible for these costs.  As a  
> Member,
> it concerns me that the legacy holders only pay $100.00 into the
> coffers, although I understand the reasoning.  Having my contributed
> dollars allocated to a registry that I will never use doesn't seem  
> like
> an appropriate use of funds.  Then again, you don't approve of the 50k
> going to NANOG and I do, so to each his own.
>
You are mistaken here... Legacy holders don't pay anything into the  
coffers.

Those who have End-User assignments under RSA pay $100/year
regardless of whether they were previously legacy holders, or, whether
they are ARIN issued direct assignments.

Owen



From Ron at Cleven.com  Wed Oct 10 21:22:37 2007
From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:22:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710102015180.18595-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710102015180.18595-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <470D7AD4.9000301@Cleven.com>


> 
> That was not my response. My response was that I didn't say they would
> sell it.  Monetizing IP resources is not far-fetched. That's what ISPs
> do.  That's what everyone does. _You_ were the one who asserted that
> meant selling IP addresses. But that was just silliness on your part.
> 
> _You_ invented the far-fetched plans, attributed them to me, and then
> ridiculed your plans as far-fetched.
> 
> The fact is that no one else has any say whatsoever over their plans,
> far-fetched or not.  You do not get to impose rules or fees on Legacy's.


Not me, no, I'm not the one imposing rules or collecting fees, ARIN is, 
let me make that perfectly clear.  Much as I'd like to have the 
authority, I don't think I ever said I personally get to impose rules or 
fees on Legacy's.  I am proposing a (not-so-original) fundamental change 
in the way ARIN collects its fees that would inherently incent EVERYONE, 
including large ISP's and legacy-holders to conserve their IPV4 space. 
Apparently you don't believe in incenting such conservation.  I am 
stunned that anyone would be against it, but that's your opinion.  Oops, 
I forgot that you pointed out our Constitution would disintegrate if we 
actually fixed this problem.  Can't wait until the Supreme Court hears 
the case of:
    IP v. Leg.
or maybe just:
    IP v. 4

I am amused that you are still harping on the MIT portion of our 
"discussion".  Can you spell f-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s?

In any case, I give up.  There appear to be some people in this 
discussion that are shilling for legacy interests and large entrenched 
ISP's.  I suspect they have all the cards and all the power (and almost 
all the IP's).  As it it currently operating, ARIN is complicit in this 
atrocious anti-competitive behavior.

By the by, I wasn't familiar, until recently, with the groundbreaking 
new comic book documentation format.  Even if they aren't being 
proactive in the IPV4 conservation area, ARIN is certainly ahead of the 
curve in new documentation style.  Does this mean that most network 
administrators are now under the age of 19?


From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Wed Oct 10 22:53:08 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:53:08 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F143@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407415C7C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

Michael K Smith said:
> I think a new discussion about fees is relevant, but I have a 
> concern, perhaps unfounded.  Let's say someone proposes a new 
> cost structure (per IP, beads and baubles, whatever).  That 
> policy is then sent to the PPML list for review.  My question 
> is, who is reviewing it at that point?

The Finance Committee recommends fees to the Board of Trustees.
The members of the Board are elected by ARIN members in good
standing.
http://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html

You tell these folks what you think on arin-discuss or PPML
or in whatever dark alley you happen to find them.  ARIN-discuss
is preferred.

> More specifically, what is the distribution on the PPML list 
> of the various customer types by ARIN size?  My concern is 
> that the list is mostly comprised of larger players who have 
> a better understanding of the process and the importance of 
> participation, while the smaller folks are underrepresented.  
> Thus, the conversation is dominated by those larger players, 
> not because of any nefarious underpinnings or sleight of 
> hand, just because that's who happens to be on the list.

Looking at the archives,
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2007-October/author.html,
the conversation has included input
from quite a few people, whose affiliations I'm guessing from email 
address unless I know better. . .

Michael K. Smith				Adhost.com
Dean Anderson				AV8.net
Marla Azinger				ARIN AC, Frontier Communications
Mike Berger					Shout.net
Leo Bicknell				ARIN AC, Harrah's Entertainment
Philip Clark				Paxio.com
Ron Cleven					cleven.com
John Curran					ARIN BoT, ServerVault
Owen DeLong					JITTR Networks
Barry Dykes					ViaWest
Kevin Dziekonski				tst-us.com
Steve Feldman				CNET.com
Keith Hare					JCC.com
Lee Howard					ARIN BoT, Stanley
Associates
Kirk Ismay					Net Idea	
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey			Bella Mia
Chad Kissinger				Onramp Access
Michael Lambert				Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
Scott Leibrand				InterNAP
Thomas Leonard				LANline Communications
Ed Lewis					Neustar
Michael Thomas				Mathbox
Ted Mittelstaedt				IPINC
David Picard				Internet Galilee
Ray Plzak					ARIN President and CEO
Steven Raposo				19th Floor
Daniel Ruiz					Anillo Networks
David Muir Sharnoff			Idiom.com
Paul Vixie					ARIN BoT, ISC
Aaron Wendel				Wholesale Internet
David Williamson				TellMe Networks
Bill Woodcock				ARIN BoT, Packet Clearinghouse
Ryan Yaldor					TampaBay DSL
Michael Dillon				BT.com
(excluded unsubscribe messages)

Sorry if I missed anyone, or guessed wrong about your
affiliation.  This was a good brain-idling task.

I don't see any major carrier represented.  Maybe you could
say BT, InterNAP and Neustar are big players (in different
ways).  The folks from BT, InterNAP and Neustar posted a 
combined total of 5 messages of the 150 so far this month.

A glance at PPML looks like there were a few more posts from
ISP-related people.  

You didn't ask, but four of the 15 ARIN AC members and none 
of the 7 ARIN Board members work for large Internet providers.
http://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html
http://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html

Based on this sampling (please search through the archives
on your own and see what you get) I find no support for
the assertion that big players dominate ARIN conversations.

Lee


From Keith at jcc.com  Wed Oct 10 22:53:58 2007
From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:53:58 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
Message-ID: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:23 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net

> In any case, I give up.  There appear to be some people in 
> this discussion that are shilling for legacy interests and 
> large entrenched ISP's.  I suspect they have all the cards 
> and all the power (and almost all the IP's).  As it it 
> currently operating, ARIN is complicit in this atrocious 
> anti-competitive behavior.

I'm not sure who you think is shilling for legacy interests and large
entrenched ISP's.

My viewpoint is that as an IPv4 legacy address holder, ARIN has never
asked me to pay fees and so I haven't paid any fees for my IPv4
addresses.  When ARIN comes up with a reasonable RSA and reasonable fees
for IPv4 legacy address holders, I don't expect to have an issue with
signing and paying. For the record, I only have a /24, am not an ISP,
and don't represent any ISP. I suspect that my viewpoint is similar to
that of some number of other small IPv4 legacy address holders, but
don't know that for sure.

Another viewpoint is that there may be enough unused IPv4 space in some
of the large IPv4 legacy address holders to ward off the IPv4 runout for
a couple of months, in which case it might be worth attempting to
reclaim some of the unused address space.

Then there is Dean Anderson's position, which seems to be based on past
injustices.  Typically, I don't understand Dean's positions or the 20
years of history behind those positions. 

In the six months or so that I've been watching the ARIN PPML and now
the ARIN-Discuss lists, I've seen a number of people attempting to come
up with reasonable solutions to the issues.  There is also some amount
of emotion, quick answers to the wrong questions, off-the-topic
digressions, etc.

As far as I can tell, the people who have the most influence are the
people who put together coherent, well written proposals, regardless of
the size of their employer.

Keith

______________________________________________________________
 
Keith W. Hare                     JCC Consulting, Inc.
keith at jcc.com                     600 Newark Road
Phone: 740-587-0157               P.O. Box 381
Fax: 740-587-0163                 Granville, Ohio 43023
http://www.jcc.com                USA
______________________________________________________________
 
 








From shc at cfg.com  Wed Oct 10 23:42:59 2007
From: shc at cfg.com (Steve Caine)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:42:59 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>
References: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>
Message-ID: <470D9BC3.2060600@cfg.com>

On 10/10/2007 19:53, Keith W. Hare wrote:>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:23 PM
>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> 
>> In any case, I give up.  There appear to be some people in 
>> this discussion that are shilling for legacy interests and 
>> large entrenched ISP's.  I suspect they have all the cards 
>> and all the power (and almost all the IP's).  As it it 
>> currently operating, ARIN is complicit in this atrocious 
>> anti-competitive behavior.
> 
> I'm not sure who you think is shilling for legacy interests and large
> entrenched ISP's.
> 
> My viewpoint is that as an IPv4 legacy address holder, ARIN has never
> asked me to pay fees and so I haven't paid any fees for my IPv4
> addresses.  When ARIN comes up with a reasonable RSA and reasonable fees
> for IPv4 legacy address holders, I don't expect to have an issue with
> signing and paying. For the record, I only have a /24, am not an ISP,
> and don't represent any ISP. I suspect that my viewpoint is similar to
> that of some number of other small IPv4 legacy address holders, but
> don't know that for sure.

I feel I need to jump in here. Like Keith, my company has had a legacy
class C since mid-1990. I've been doing this a long time -- my NIC
Handle is my 3 initials as are my various ARIN handles (+-ARIN, of
course). My company's domain name is within the first 100 domain names
issued that are still in use. (I realize that none of that makes any
difference but it seems the easiest way to demonstrate that I really
have been doing this for a bit).

My last update using an ARIN template was around the end of 2003 to
change an address or phone number -- cant remember which.

Since at least 2000, I've tried to figure out whether we needed to
make any changes in our relationship with ARIN, including sending
several emails to hostmaster. I never received a response. None.

Since there seemed to be no official way to change that relationship,
and feeling we ought to be doing _something_, we joined ARIN by paying
the $500 annual fee. If the community decides we ought to be paying an
additional $100 or so to keep our Class C, that's OK -- it's really in
the noise. If the community decides we need to sign an RSA, that's OK,
too, as long as it lets us keep that Class C without any utilization
restrictions.  (Note: I am explicitly only talking about IPV4. I doubt
I will live long enough to really need to worry about IPV6, but if I
do, I will be happy to justify any needs and pay for them just like
anyone who never had an IPV4 allocation of any kind).

I expect that there are other legacy holders with similar views, but
in talking with some, most are not willing to subject themselves to
the usenet-style attacks that seem to be common on this mailing list
and on PPML.

> [snip]

Steve.
-- 
Steve Caine
Caine, Farber & Gordon, Inc.
shc at cfg.com :: http://www.cfg.com
626 449 3071 :: +1 626 449 3071




From Ron at Cleven.com  Thu Oct 11 08:06:15 2007
From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:06:15 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>
References: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>
Message-ID: <470E11B5.9020000@Cleven.com>


>>In any case, I give up.  There appear to be some people in 
>>this discussion that are shilling for legacy interests and 
>>large entrenched ISP's.  I suspect they have all the cards 
>>and all the power (and almost all the IP's).  As it it 
>>currently operating, ARIN is complicit in this atrocious 
>>anti-competitive behavior.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure who you think is shilling for legacy interests and large
> entrenched ISP's.
> 
> My viewpoint is that as an IPv4 legacy address holder, ARIN has never
> asked me to pay fees and so I haven't paid any fees for my IPv4
> addresses.  When ARIN comes up with a reasonable RSA and reasonable fees
> for IPv4 legacy address holders, I don't expect to have an issue with
> signing and paying. For the record, I only have a /24, am not an ISP,
> and don't represent any ISP. I suspect that my viewpoint is similar to
> that of some number of other small IPv4 legacy address holders, but
> don't know that for sure.

I stand corrected.  I would not expect legacy holders with a small 
number of ip's to care much either way.  More precisely, I should have 
said "large legacy interests and large entrenched ISP's".  I am curious 
though to hear you elaborate more about two points:

1) What would you consider a "reasonable" RSA?
2) You also referred to "reasonable" fees.  Would you have any problem 
with having those fees scaled according to the number of IP's?  Are you 
suggesting / expecting a different fee schedule for legacy-holders?

While I was happy when I first started reading some of the postings on 
this list to see several people indicate support for per-IP pricing to 
instill some market discipline on the IPV4 space, I was surprised to see 
some of the militant opposition to it.

As a small ISP, I would never pay for more IP's than I needed to support 
my customer base.  If you have been living with relatively static IP 
space for many years, I don't think you understand the capricious nature 
of the current ARIN administration of IPV4 space.  Rather than letting 
market forces influence the number of IP's allocated, they force you 
through a series of detailed and antiquated templates, even requiring 
you in some instances to reveal sensitive customer lists.

If, instead, ARIN required you to pay some larger up-front license fee 
for each allocation (scaled by size), then perhaps a smaller annual 
maintenance fee per IP, those administration problems would be radically 
diminished.  If licensee's could retire the space for the same serious 
fee they paid up-front, market forces would greatly reduce the 
administrative oversight needed.

A list of, say, the top 1000 holders (followed by a line for "All 
Others") of IPV4 allocations within ARIN's purview (sorted by number of 
IP's allocated) of roughly the following format, would bring clarity to 
this discussion.  I don't really care whether there is an asterisk added 
indicating a legacy holder, because I don't think that is relevant to 
the discussion.  Perhaps such a table already exists or is easily 
derivable from some public information.

Number of IP's     Entity Name      Entity Type (ISP, University, etc.)
==============     ===========      ===========

                    <All Others>
==============     ===========
<Total IP's>       <Total Entities>

This coupled with another table describing number of IP's in use at the 
end of recent years and the number ARIN has remaining to allocate would 
allow some useful cogitation about the matter.

Year    Number of IP's Allocated    Number of IP's Remaining
====    ========================    ========================
2007    (projected)
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000

The reason I am looking for authoritative information in these areas is 
that I have seen several serious discussions of these issues with wildly 
differing statistical assumptions.  I don't know who to believe.



> 
> Another viewpoint is that there may be enough unused IPv4 space in some
> of the large IPv4 legacy address holders to ward off the IPv4 runout for
> a couple of months, in which case it might be worth attempting to
> reclaim some of the unused address space.
> 
> Then there is Dean Anderson's position, which seems to be based on past
> injustices.  Typically, I don't understand Dean's positions or the 20
> years of history behind those positions. 
> 
> In the six months or so that I've been watching the ARIN PPML and now
> the ARIN-Discuss lists, I've seen a number of people attempting to come
> up with reasonable solutions to the issues.  There is also some amount
> of emotion, quick answers to the wrong questions, off-the-topic
> digressions, etc.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the people who have the most influence are the
> people who put together coherent, well written proposals, regardless of
> the size of their employer.





From berger at shout.net  Thu Oct 11 09:02:16 2007
From: berger at shout.net (Mike Berger)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:02:16 -0500
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <470E11B5.9020000@Cleven.com>
References: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>
	<470E11B5.9020000@Cleven.com>
Message-ID: <470E1ED8.5030009@shout.net>

If you let "market forces" determine IPV4 allocations, small ISP's will 
cease to exist
altogether.  Look what happened to the radio spectrum.

Ron Cleven wrote:
> As a small ISP, I would never pay for more IP's than I needed to support 
> my customer base.  If you have been living with relatively static IP 
> space for many years, I don't think you understand the capricious nature 
> of the current ARIN administration of IPV4 space.  Rather than letting 
> market forces influence the number of IP's allocated, they force you 
> through a series of detailed and antiquated templates, even requiring 
> you in some instances to reveal sensitive customer lists.
>   




From Ron at Cleven.com  Thu Oct 11 09:19:00 2007
From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:19:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <470E1ED8.5030009@shout.net>
References: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>	<470E11B5.9020000@Cleven.com>
	<470E1ED8.5030009@shout.net>
Message-ID: <470E22C2.4000304@Cleven.com>

Not a big believer in the free market, eh?

You can delve into irrelevant analogies all you like.  However, to your 
particular point:

I did NOT say we should let market forces DETERMINE IPV4 allocations.  I 
specifically said we should let market forces INFLUENCE IPV4 allocations.



Mike Berger wrote:

> If you let "market forces" determine IPV4 allocations, small ISP's will 
> cease to exist
> altogether.  Look what happened to the radio spectrum.
> 
> Ron Cleven wrote:
> 
>>As a small ISP, I would never pay for more IP's than I needed to support 
>>my customer base.  If you have been living with relatively static IP 
>>space for many years, I don't think you understand the capricious nature 
>>of the current ARIN administration of IPV4 space.  Rather than letting 
>>market forces influence the number of IP's allocated, they force you 
>>through a series of detailed and antiquated templates, even requiring 
>>you in some instances to reveal sensitive customer lists.
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 



From Keith at jcc.com  Thu Oct 11 09:49:40 2007
From: Keith at jcc.com (Keith W. Hare)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:49:40 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
Message-ID: <0b914a3bfba348adeb40092a7320f96c470e29eb@jcc.com>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:06 AM

> I stand corrected.  I would not expect legacy holders with a small 
> number of ip's to care much either way.  More precisely, I 
> should have 
> said "large legacy interests and large entrenched ISP's".  I 
> am curious 
> though to hear you elaborate more about two points:
> 
> 1) What would you consider a "reasonable" RSA?

I tend to agree with Steve Caine on this subject:

    If the community decides we need to sign an RSA, 
    that's OK, too, as long as it lets us keep that 
    Class C without any utilization restrictions.  
    (Note: I am explicitly only talking about IPV4. ...)

> 2) You also referred to "reasonable" fees.  Would you have 
> any problem 
> with having those fees scaled according to the number of 
> IP's?  Are you 
> suggesting / expecting a different fee schedule for legacy-holders?

If I read the ARIN pricing correctly, with the current pricing model, I
would either be charged $100/year as an end user, or $1,250/year for a
/24.  Of those two, I prefer the $100/year.

But the question you are really asking is if I had a /16 or a /8, would
I be willing to pay a lot more for that?  Since I don't have a /16 or a
/8, and we are using our /24 internally, I can't really answer that.

> While I was happy when I first started reading some of the 
> postings on 
> this list to see several people indicate support for per-IP 
> pricing to 
> instill some market discipline on the IPV4 space, I was 
> surprised to see 
> some of the militant opposition to it.

Part of the problem with the pricing discussion is that it keeps merging
the pricing model topic with the legacy IPv4 Address Holder topic. There
is an overlap but I don't think the issues can be handled in the same
discussion.

Keith




From plzak at arin.net  Thu Oct 11 07:02:57 2007
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:02:57 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Co-op?
In-Reply-To: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A0272FA65@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt>
References: <454810F09B5AA04E9D78D13A5C39028A0272FA65@nyrofcs2ke2k01.corp.pvt>
Message-ID: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202933A1343@EDAMAME.arin.net>

Before answering that question, I would have to know what kind of co-op are we talking about? Is it a co-op that provides cable service and is looking to add internet service? Is it a co-op that is a representative organization of a group of users and/or small businesses who are looking to establish an organization to provide local internet access? etc.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Azinger, Marla
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:55 PM
> To: Michael Thomas - Mathbox; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Co-op?
>
> The last conversation I had regarding co-ops was that they can apply
> for address space.  The conversation went allot deeper and in many
> directions but the bottom line was they aren't banned but it was
> questionable if current policy handles it just fine or if we should be
> creating policy addressing that kind of request because it could be
> viewed as having unique dynamics.
>
> Sorry its not clear cut.
>
> And please if someone on ARIN staff can point out any show stopping
> hiccups they already know regarding Co-Op requests, please do.
>
> I would also like to know.  Why do you ask that question?
>
> Regards
> Marla
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Michael Thomas -
> Mathbox
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:00 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-discuss] Co-op?
>
>
> Are cooperatives banned from IP space allocation?
>
> Michael Thomas
> Mathbox
> 978-683-6718
> 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the
> ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Discussion
> Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the
> ARIN Member
> Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From dean at av8.com  Thu Oct 11 05:19:57 2007
From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710102342470.18595-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Keith W. Hare wrote:

> My viewpoint is that as an IPv4 legacy address holder, ARIN has never
> asked me to pay fees and so I haven't paid any fees for my IPv4
> addresses.  When ARIN comes up with a reasonable RSA and reasonable
> fees for IPv4 legacy address holders, I don't expect to have an issue
> with signing and paying. 

I Agree. I don't think most Legacy's have an issue with the money per
se.  But for most proposals, the RSA has been the means to get legacy's
to give up all the unencumbered rights that make Legacy space special.  
ARIN's (or rather a certain group) issue is not really about the money.  
Its about something else. As ARIN's lawyer pointed out:

  "Because there's a window coming that intersects with the IPv4
   exhaustion issue, where for a brief time, these resources will
   actually become financially more valuable if they were unencumbered,
   and where that value will only be for a limited period."

I think above is the real issue, for them.

Money is a significant issue despite the seemingly trivial amounts.
Money (that is, that service fees are only charged to non-legacy's) is a
part of the deal that ARIN made and has to obey. If ARIN can get out of
one part, they strengthen the legal argument that there is no deal, or
that somehow it was changed. That's why the money issue is important
here, even though the amounts are trivial, and Legacy's are willing to
pay.  If we just pay even a trivial amount for an improper bill, we
could forfeit rights in the whole agreement.

My position is just this:

1. Legacy's have unencumbered rights through agreement with the
government.  Those rights are very special and very valuable. If you
give them up, you can never get them back.

2. ARIN entered into a bargain with the government that requires ARIN to
provide services to Legacy's for free, in return for opportunities on
future assignments and other privileges.

3. Legacy's cannot be forced to give up these rights, by ARIN or even by
the government.  The government can't break the agreement, either, and 
can't pass an ex-post-facto law modifying the agreement unilaterally.

4. Legacy's should act as a group to protect these rights.  They should
work together to oppose ARIN legal claims that there are no rules or
that Legacy have no legal rights, and to oppose in Court efforts to
deprive Legacy's of these rights.  A Legacy Registry ensures that we
only have to do this once and won't repeat it every six months.

5. Don't sign an RSA on your Legacy space.


As you pointed out, no one has asked for donations. But the reason for
that is because they agreed in the beginning that these Legacies would
be free.  _All_ they can ask for are donations. But they don't _want_ to
ask for donations; they _want_ you to sign the RSA; they _want_ to
remove rights; What good is that to them?

If they remove your rights, they can take space from you and give that
space to other people (their cronies).  How does that work?  For
example, Owen Delong told me a while back that he just then recently got
an allocation from ARIN in a few hours, start to finish. For others, its
a long tedious process that takes months and months.  ARIN doesn't need
the money. Its about transfering Legacy blocks to other people; people
who can get through the process in a few hours.

We've already seen that 1) ARIN doesn't need more money. 2) ARIN is
going on 'outreach' junkets and giving money to cronies of several of
the board members. We've seen this kind of activity before, from the
same group of people.  I've documented some of it.


> Another viewpoint is that there may be enough unused IPv4 space in
> some of the large IPv4 legacy address holders to ward off the IPv4
> runout for a couple of months, in which case it might be worth
> attempting to reclaim some of the unused address space.

I think Legacy's will use it on their own initiative, when the time
comes.  If not, that's their right, too. One can only ask nicely. One
cannot demand or 'take' Legacy space.

> Then there is Dean Anderson's position, which seems to be based on
> past injustices.  Typically, I don't understand Dean's positions or
> the 20 years of history behind those positions.

I'll try to be clearer in stating my positions. My position isn't based
on past injustices. I cite past injustices to demonstrate the objective
facts that illuminate the history of certain issues and certain groups
(or maybe just group) of people.  That past history helps other people
understand how we got to where we are, and helps other people to
evaluate the trustworthiness of the people making assertions with thin
or no evidence. Past misconduct has an independent status as an
objective fact, and is critical when evaluating a person's integrity,
honesty, trustworthiness, and credibility. Dissembling in the present is
often indicated and uncovered by the past history of such actions.

When you see that people have conducted injustices in the past, that
should signal something about them.  As Howard Lee said some months ago,
"did you tell them 'don't commit fraud'?"  Well, did you? Did anyone?  
Ok, many people didn't know. Now they do know.

> As far as I can tell, the people who have the most influence are the
> people who put together coherent, well written proposals, regardless
> of the size of their employer.

I think your statement is true in most situations.

For example, both FSF(GNU) and the LPF also started off as longshots,
both founded by Richard Stallman.  But both have changed the industry
and the world. (I'm the President of the LPF). The LPF eliminated user
interface copyright, in part through legal briefs that I organized, and
I notice now that the proponents of the new patent law have at least
attempted to adopt our position in selling the law as 'solving the
patent problem'. Changing patent law is a _long_ term project, involving
many constituencies.  You all know of FSF/GNU, I'm sure.  At the outset,
everything is a longshot. Experience with longshots helps, though.

Now, I'm getting Legacy people together offlist to work on a proposal to
solve Legacy problems at ARIN without compromising Legacy rights. You've
got nothing to lose by working together with other Legacy's to preserve
your rights in unencumbered IP space, and everything to lose by not.

Email me offlist for details if you are interested. There are already a
number who are interested.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   








From mksmith at adhost.com  Thu Oct 11 16:31:21 2007
From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:31:21 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710102342470.18595-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <daa035bd7a1d2cfa0fa19df543f59bc7470d9044@jcc.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0710102342470.18595-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D5203160297F250@ad-exh01.adhost.lan>

Hello:
<snip>
> 
> If they remove your rights, they can take space from you and give that
> space to other people (their cronies).  How does that work?  For
> example, Owen Delong told me a while back that he just then recently
> got
> an allocation from ARIN in a few hours, start to finish. For others,
> its
> a long tedious process that takes months and months.  ARIN doesn't
need
> the money. Its about transfering Legacy blocks to other people; people
> who can get through the process in a few hours.
> 
> We've already seen that 1) ARIN doesn't need more money. 2) ARIN is
> going on 'outreach' junkets and giving money to cronies of several of
> the board members. We've seen this kind of activity before, from the
> same group of people.  I've documented some of it.
> 
> 

I just applied and received a /20 in about 2 hours and I guarantee I am
not part of "(their cronies)."  I have been through the process of
applying for space over 10 times and I've always found the speed of the
process to be an exact corollary to how prepared I was to provide the
necessary information to receive an allocation.  I think these types of
ad-hominem attacks are specious, at best.  If you really believe that
there is a conspiracy to control and manipulate the IPv4 address space
by a select group of people then you should back it up with more than
"For others, it's a long tedious process that takes months and months."

Regards,

Mike 


From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Oct 11 18:46:04 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:46:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710102342470.18595-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOIECHHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
>Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:20 AM
>To: Keith W. Hare
>Cc: Ron Cleven; arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy
>assignments?
>

>My position is just this:
>
>1. Legacy's have unencumbered rights through agreement with the
>government.  Those rights are very special and very valuable. If you
>give them up, you can never get them back.
>
>2. ARIN entered into a bargain with the government that requires ARIN to
>provide services to Legacy's for free, in return for opportunities on
>future assignments and other privileges.
>

No Dean.  The very extent of what this alleged "bargin" allegedly covers is
what is under dispute.  You have not offered up proof needed to establish
this claim, and I frankly do not think you can because I don't think
it exists.

Your trying to convince me and everyone that this "bargain" exists by
saying it exists, over and over again.

This is a matter of faith, not of facts.  It is no different than the
people who claim that the Bible is the literal Word of God, then when
asked for proof, respond by saying the Bible is the literal word of God.

Your making a religious argument, plain and simple.

>3. Legacy's cannot be forced to give up these rights, by ARIN or even by
>the government.  The government can't break the agreement, either, and
>can't pass an ex-post-facto law modifying the agreement unilaterally.
>

Wrong again.  The US government can take away ANY right in the US not
explicitly
guarenteed in the US Constituion, and they can redefine rights that are
guarenteed so narrowly as to be almost useless.

You think you have freedom of expression in the US do you?  Sorry, guess
what.  You
can write a book that explains the algorithim for encoding DVDs and publish
it in the US under your constitutional rights just fine.  But, the second
you
digitize and publish digitally ANY SCRAP of that book that covers that
algorithim - bang, your going to be arrested for violating the DMCA. All
the government had to do was define freedom of speech as
freedom to talk or print books.  Not, apparently, freedom to type words
on to an electronic forum.  I sure hope that we never run out of trees!!

And that's not the only one.  Look at US copyright law.  What did the
Founding Fathers give us for rights in the US constitution?  What do we have
today?  Copyrights that last 70+ years after the author died?  WTF is
that?  Talk about recinding a right the public had!

And as for rights in a contract that AREN'T explicitly guarenteed - watch
out!
Implied rights don't mean diddly squat.  Do you know how many business
contracts have
been voided out because of non-specific language?  Tons!  Why do you think
that
SCO is going bankrupt?  They interpreted a vague contract to mean they had
UNIX
rights to sue - and a judge came along and changed the meaning in a few
sentences
in a paragraph - and bang, a multimillon dollar company is bankrupt, just
like that.

Wake up Dean, your living in a dreamworld.

>4. Legacy's should act as a group to protect these rights.  They should
>work together to oppose ARIN legal claims that there are no rules or
>that Legacy have no legal rights, and to oppose in Court efforts to
>deprive Legacy's of these rights.  A Legacy Registry ensures that we
>only have to do this once and won't repeat it every six months.
>

The very essence of this "unencumbered value" you attribute to Legacy
IPv4 numbers is the fact that they HAVE NO RULES.  Now you are telling
the Legacy holders to band together and pay money - give up what is unique,
the
anarchy and cost-freeness of legacy assignments - to protect the anarchy
and cost-freeness of legacy assignments.

You are a piece of work, Dean.

By the time you get done with any Legacy holders dumb enough to give you
the time of day, they are going to be
far worse off than anything the rest of us could dream up for ARIN to do
to them.  Frankly, any Legacy holder that jumps on whatever bandwagon
you think you are going to offer them -deserves- you.

>5. Don't sign an RSA on your Legacy space.
>
>
>As you pointed out, no one has asked for donations. But the reason for
>that is because they agreed in the beginning that these Legacies would
>be free.  _All_ they can ask for are donations. But they don't _want_ to
>ask for donations; they _want_ you to sign the RSA; they _want_ to
>remove rights; What good is that to them?
>

they, they, they, they.  Who is they?  Oh I forgot - it's US, everyone
on this list here - PLUS the legacy holders who are also ARIN members and
who are attending meetings and contributing input.

So basically it's you against the world.  Oh sorry, I didn't realize that
this was what this is all about.  Your not happy unless everyone is
dumping on you, and if they are not you do what you can to get under
us, and if we move away, you follow along.  I guess I just made your day.

Dean, please, for your own sanity,
go find some other cause that really is a true lost cause to fight on.
The Republican National Committee could probably use you.  This isn't
the situation with the Legacy holders here and your doing them a
disservice to try to make it seem as though it is.

What the Legacy holders should do is take a look at the existing RSAs,
read them, see if they like them or not, if they do then sign.  If not,
don't sign and wait for another to come along that they like better.

What the Legacy holders should NOT do is listen to you telling them to
STAY IGNORANT and NOT READ the documentation in the existing or any
future RSAs.  They should make uo their OWN MINDS based on their OWN
interpretation, NOT YOURS or ANYONE ELSES.

>
>> As far as I can tell, the people who have the most influence are the
>> people who put together coherent, well written proposals, regardless
>> of the size of their employer.
>
>I think your statement is true in most situations.
>
>For example, both FSF(GNU) and the LPF also started off as longshots,
>both founded by Richard Stallman.  But both have changed the industry
>and the world.

Absolutely wrong, once more.  The SOFTWARE that was under the GPL
changed the world.  And without the GPL that software would have still
happened and still changed the world.  RMS likes to tell the tale like
he single-handedly created the Open Source movement.  What rubbish and
rot.  A good percentage of the stuff people have put under GPL
was copied from BSD licensed code.  You GPL people seem to forget that
all of the time.  And the USL/BSD/ATT lawsuit laid the groundwork for
a lot of the legal underpinnings the FSF uses today, another conveniently
ignored debt of gratitude by the RMS supporters like yourself.

Dean you illustrate the fundamental dichotomy of the GPL and the GPL
supporters.  "In order to be free, you have to do it the way WE tell
you to do it, and you have to sign away your rights to US."  And people
come running with their tongues hanging out to suck that stuff up as
fast as they can.  Yeah, you understand freedom all right - you just
DON'T WANT ANYONE ELSE to HAVE it.  For all your talk of control - you
desire control far, far more than anyone else on this list.

>Now, I'm getting Legacy people together offlist to work on a proposal to
>solve Legacy problems at ARIN without compromising Legacy rights. You've
>got nothing to lose by working together with other Legacy's to preserve
>your rights in unencumbered IP space, and everything to lose by not.
>
>Email me offlist for details if you are interested. There are already a
>number who are interested.
>

Sure, sure.  I'll believe it when I see them put their money where your
mouth is.

Ted



From dean at av8.net  Thu Oct 11 20:43:17 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:43:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOIECHHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710111956320.20456-100000@citation2.av8.net>

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> >2. ARIN entered into a bargain with the government that requires ARIN to
> >provide services to Legacy's for free, in return for opportunities on
> >future assignments and other privileges.
>
> No Dean.  The very extent of what this alleged "bargin" allegedly covers is
> what is under dispute.  

I agree that the terms of the bargain are being disputed. But that
implies there is a bargain to dispute, doesn't it?

> You have not offered up proof needed to establish this claim, and I
> frankly do not think you can because I don't think it exists.

Legacy's have 20+ years of performance to establish their claims. Even
if there were no written documents, that's proof enough to establish the
claim; If there are no documents, and if the documents are actually
vague and unspecific, then past performance defines the undefined terms.

Explain to the court why Legacy's weren't charged fees, or subjected to
RSA rules for 20+ years, or even during the 11 years of ARIN existance?

But there are certainly written documents. There is RFC 1261 which
describes the transfer from SRI to Network Solutions. There are
references to a contract that Network Solutions had to perform the
registry service. (I don't have this contract in hand, but I'm sure it
can be obtained.)  Likewise, there was correspondence and probably
written contracts that ARIN entered into in its formation. I don't have
these contracts in hand either, but I've no doubt they can be obtained.  
It would be nice if ARIN put these documents and correspondence on its
web site, like ICANN does.

But ARIN hasn't trotted them out to prove its case, either, so I think
we can assume for the moment that they are either vague or non-existant,
or they support my view of the bargain.

> Your trying to convince me and everyone that this "bargain" exists by
> saying it exists, over and over again.

I'm amazed that you think that any kind of serious, long term
relationship isn't defined by an agreement whose terms can be determined
by a court.  I'm amazed that you would think there is no correspondence
that can be used to determine the intent of the agreement, even if it
isn't written down.  I can only guess that is due to a lack of
legal/management experience.

> This is a matter of faith, not of facts.  

Hundreds of years of legal history favor my interpretation of the means
of resolving terms of vague or implied agreements, not yours.

> >3. Legacy's cannot be forced to give up these rights, by ARIN or even
> >by the government.  The government can't break the agreement, either,
> >and can't pass an ex-post-facto law modifying the agreement
> >unilaterally.
> 
> Wrong again.  The US government can take away ANY right in the US not
> explicitly guarenteed in the US Constituion, and they can redefine
> rights that are guarenteed so narrowly as to be almost useless.

People sue the government and compel performance every day.  But your
view is really scary. You live in a truly terrifying world.  
Fortunately, it has no relation to the real world.

> >4. Legacy's should act as a group to protect these rights.  They
> >should work together to oppose ARIN legal claims that there are no
> >rules or that Legacy have no legal rights, and to oppose in Court
> >efforts to deprive Legacy's of these rights.  A Legacy Registry
> >ensures that we only have to do this once and won't repeat it every
> >six months.
> 
> The very essence of this "unencumbered value" you attribute to Legacy
> IPv4 numbers is the fact that they HAVE NO RULES.

Legacy's aren't encumbered by the _RSA_ rules. The RSA rules are what
gives ARIN all the rights. Being free of the RSA isn't anarchy. Anarchy
is having no government and no body of law to resolve civil disputes. We
don't have anarchy; instead we have government and laws.

> Now you are telling the Legacy holders to band together and pay money
> - give up what is unique, the anarchy and cost-freeness of legacy
> assignments - to protect the anarchy and cost-freeness of legacy
> assignments.

I'm not asking any Legacy to give up any rights, so you seem to
misunderstand or misrepresent my position.  I'm telling them to form
(pay into)  a legal defense fund to fight ARIN. That doesn't cause them
to give up rights.

Rest of rant ignored.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   





From dean at av8.net  Fri Oct 12 01:55:36 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:55:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710120148150.20489-100000@citation2.av8.net>

It occurs to me that the release of the Legacy RSA just announced
violates the process of ARIN to solicit input from the membership before
adopting a new license.  The ARIN community should discuss the license
and decide the terms just like any other significant change in ARIN.  
ARIN can't just drop a new licence without any discussion.

It also occurs to me that Legacy RSA, if it removes _any_ privilege or
value from Legacy's, is extortion.  From Blacks Law dictionary:

Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful 
use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of 
official right. 18 U.S.C.A section 871 et seq; section 1951

ARIN, in statements by it lawyer, and supported by Chairman Curran's
statements, has threatened to deny service to Legacy's under the color
of official right, creating fear and thereby inducing Legacy's to agree
to an RSA that (presumably) removes valuable rights from Legacy's.

There are references to the Hobbs Act (racketeering) if the extortion
interferes with interstate commerce (it does, since whois and in-addr
services are used in interstate commerce.)

Anticipating that people might argue that IP Addresses aren't property,
I looked up what property is. According to Black's Law Dictionary, in
criminal law, the term 'property' includes contract rights, and that is
exactly what the subject is here.

		--Dean


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   





From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Oct 12 06:23:01 2007
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:23:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710120148150.20489-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710120148150.20489-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <p06240808c334fb2ee877@[192.168.3.65]>

At 1:55 AM -0400 10/12/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>It occurs to me that the release of the Legacy RSA just announced
>violates the process of ARIN to solicit input from the membership before
>adopting a new license.  The ARIN community should discuss the license
>and decide the terms just like any other significant change in ARIN. 
>ARIN can't just drop a new licence without any discussion.

It will discussed at next week's meeting...  on-site and remote
participation is more than welcome.

/John


From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz  Fri Oct 12 15:50:01 2007
From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:50:01 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407415C7C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407415C7C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
Message-ID: <a06240804c3357ba1f69f@[192.168.1.100]>

At 22:53 -0400 10/10/07, Howard, W. Lee wrote:

>...Maybe you could
>say BT, InterNAP and Neustar are big players (in different
>ways).  The folks from BT, InterNAP and Neustar posted a
>combined total of 5 messages of the 150 so far this month.

Speaking for myself as the DRM for NeuStar...I've read all of the 
messages but  there hasn't been much to comment on.  Some messages 
are rather enlightening - exposing to me perspectives I don't get 
from where I sit.  But some messages devalue the list.

What I have been inspired to think is "how important is the fee 
level" when it comes to encouraging or discouraging IPv6 deployment 
or impacting business models?  Do the ARIN fees for numbering 
resources compare in business impact to the cost of routing the 
traffic on the Internet?  (I ask with a tone of voice that would 
indicate that I would be surprised if the answer is "yes.")

As someone said earlier, "fees" haven't been given a good thorough 
going over in a long time.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Think glocally.  Act confused.


From mksmith at adhost.com  Fri Oct 12 16:35:13 2007
From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael Smith)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:35:13 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <a06240804c3357ba1f69f@[192.168.1.100]>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407415C7C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
	<a06240804c3357ba1f69f@[192.168.1.100]>
Message-ID: <5D871CFD-2DA2-4C84-B45F-CC174744546E@adhost.com>

Hello:

On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:

> At 22:53 -0400 10/10/07, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
>
>> ...Maybe you could
>> say BT, InterNAP and Neustar are big players (in different
>> ways).  The folks from BT, InterNAP and Neustar posted a
>> combined total of 5 messages of the 150 so far this month.
>
> Speaking for myself as the DRM for NeuStar...I've read all of the
> messages but  there hasn't been much to comment on.  Some messages
> are rather enlightening - exposing to me perspectives I don't get
> from where I sit.  But some messages devalue the list.
>
> What I have been inspired to think is "how important is the fee
> level" when it comes to encouraging or discouraging IPv6 deployment
> or impacting business models?  Do the ARIN fees for numbering
> resources compare in business impact to the cost of routing the
> traffic on the Internet?  (I ask with a tone of voice that would
> indicate that I would be surprised if the answer is "yes.")
>
"Yes," for some.  :-)  There are many providers who accept default  
routes but still announce ARIN-assigned address space, and many of  
these smaller players see ARIN fees as a real line item in their  
budget.   However, for the 'multi-homing to the DFZ' amongst us, I  
doubt the fees are felt much in comparison to acquiring the hardware  
necessary to accept a routing table that continues to grow.

With that said and as a recipient of a /32 that is visible in the  
IPv6 DFZ, the cost deferral model ARIN is presently using for IPv6  
space feels like the best mechanism for pulling people towards v6.  I  
favor the "carrot" approach and I think a continuance of this model  
will incentive more people to join the hex crowd.

> As someone said earlier, "fees" haven't been given a good thorough
> going over in a long time.
> -- 
>
As a Member-driven organization we should address these things on a  
regular basis, in my opinion.  But, it would be nice to see lots of  
Members in the discussion.  I would love to see lower fees, but quite  
frankly, if I were to propose that to the list I also feel the onus  
is on me to come up with the reasoning as to why they should be  
lower.  Right now, the only reason I have is because "lower is better  
for me."  Since this list isn't about "me" I haven't pushed for lower  
fees.  However, I'll probably "me too" to any cogent argument.  :-)

Regards,

Mike


From ralph at istop.com  Sat Oct 13 22:59:52 2007
From: ralph at istop.com (Ralph Doncaster)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:59:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710111956320.20456-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710111956320.20456-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0710132251410.21462@ns.istop.com>

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:

> Legacy's have 20+ years of performance to establish their claims. Even
> if there were no written documents, that's proof enough to establish the
> claim; If there are no documents, and if the documents are actually
> vague and unspecific, then past performance defines the undefined terms.

My understanding of contract law is that it requires an offer, acceptance,
and consideration.  It seems legacy users accepted an offer of an
assignment of IP space, but for those who got it for free I don't see
evidence of consideration.

For legacy's that got their assignment for free, what would their claim be
based on if not contract law?

-Ralph


From dean at av8.com  Sun Oct 14 02:31:39 2007
From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:31:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ
In-Reply-To: <000001c80e05$dcf3a700$0a00090a@arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710140129590.21887-100000@citation2.av8.net>

Having reviewed the Legacy RSA, I can say that it removes a number of
significant rights from Legacies.  With the exception of fees, it is
about as onerous and encumbered as the regular RSA.

Embedded in the document is again the threat of denial of services. The 
agreement states that by signing agreement, ARIN will 

Legacies get a fee of $100/yr through 2013. After 2013, the fees can 
go up.

Section 3. A great deal of the agreement is at ARIN's sole discretion.  
It looks like a Legacy that signs this agreement can lose their block if
ARIN "Determines in its sole discretion that it cannot provide
services".


Section 4.  Under the new agreement, if one doesn't 'cooperate' with
ARIN, again in its sole discretion, may take back the block. Wow.

ARIN can take back a block if the applicant is ever found to violate
'any applicable laws, statutes or regulations by a ruling...'.  Guess 
McDonalds won't be able to keep their block. They violate health
regulations somewhere every day.

ARIN can take back a block if the applicant _assists_ anyone doing
something prohibited by this document. I guess that means ISC loses its
blocks, because it assists SORBS and Alan Brown, who has been found in a
court to violate the law for defamation. Oh wait, those aren't legacy
blocks....

Applicant is responsible for timely management and accurate maintenance 
of whois data and SWIP data. So if your whois or SWIP gets out of date, 
you are in violation of the agreement; you lose your block. Wow.

Section 8.  ARIN may review your allocation once per year. If you don't
comply with the allocation policy, ARIN can back your block.

Section 12. Bankruptcy is another provision. If a legacy declares
bankruptcy under any chapter (even debt reorganization!), then ARIN can
take back the block. I can see taking back a block when a chapter 7
bankruptcy or other chapter leading to termination of business would
justify taking back a block. However, there is no reason why chapter 11
(debt reorganization), which doesn't lead to business termination and in
fact prevents creditors from halting operations, should be justification
for ARIN taking back blocks. This is a flaw in the NPRM, too.

What's worse, if SOMEONE ELSE files a bankruptcy petition against you,
ARIN can take back the block. Wow. Guess there will be a lot of
frivolous bankruptcy petitions against people they don't like. This is
also in the RSA, but I hadn't noticed it before.

Section 14. Term and Termination. ARIN can terminate immediately with 
cause (violations above), or at each year.  Its a very lopsided 
agreement.

Section 15. The only right the legacy keeps is the right to transfer.  
Well, not exactly. One now needs ARIN's written permission. There's also
an anti-Kremen v ARIN, Kremen v. Cohen clause to say that blocks cannot
be re-assigned involuntarilly by a Court. Wow.

One of the serious flaws is that one must agree to resolve disputes
through arbitration. Arbitration is a fine way to cheaply resolve small
disputes, where all that is needed a reasonable third person to resolve
trivial disputes. However, there is no appeal from arbitration. If one
goes to Court, and the judge makes a mistake, that mistake can be
corrected. But if an arbitrator makes a mistake, there is no way to
correct that.  An arbitrator also may not have any sophisticated
understanding of the law. They are often lawyers, but need not be
lawyers.  Even where they are lawyers, they may not be experts in the
legal issues relevant to your case. So, for any complicated case, where
there is more possibility of mistake, there is no possibility that
mistake can be corrected.  This makes arbitration a very bad choice for
anything of importance, where proper adherence to the law is important.  
So, I think it is a bad idea to agree to arbitration on any significant
issue.  Certainly, Legacies have not previously agreed to arbitration,
nor anything else in this Legacy RSA.

What a horribly unfair and lopsided agreement. The regular RSA is a real
doozy, too, I just noticed.  Time to write those letters to Congress. We
definitely need a new, FAIR registrar.

I think we can now say without doubt that this Legacy RSA removes rights
from Legacies who sign it and transfers those rights to ARIN. And as a
result, there is an even stronger argument that ARIN, by creating a fear
of denial of services in the minds of Legacies, and then obtaining
contract and property rights from Legacies, has engaged in extortion and
racketeering as explained in my previous message (repeated below)

It also remains unclear at what Board Meeting this was discussed. It
remains unclear what NRPM change allows it to be accepted. It remains
unclear why community input on the document wasn't solicited before it
was released.

It is however clear what benefits ARIN obtains from Legacies.

>From my previous message (Friday):

It occurs to me that the release of the Legacy RSA just announced
violates the process of ARIN to solicit input from the membership before
adopting a new license.  The ARIN community should discuss the license
and decide the terms just like any other significant change in ARIN.  
ARIN can't just drop a new licence without any discussion.

It also occurs to me that Legacy RSA, if it removes _any_ privilege or
value from Legacy's, is extortion.  From Blacks Law dictionary:

Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful
use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of
official right. 18 U.S.C.A section 871 et seq; section 1951

ARIN, in statements by it lawyer, and supported by Chairman Curran's
statements, has threatened to deny service to Legacy's under the color
of official right, creating fear and thereby inducing Legacy's to agree
to an RSA that (presumably) removes valuable rights from Legacy's.

There are references to the Hobbs Act (racketeering) if the extortion
interferes with interstate commerce (it does, since whois and in-addr
services are used in interstate commerce.)

Anticipating that people might argue that IP Addresses aren't property,
I looked up what property is. According to Black's Law Dictionary, in
criminal law, the term 'property' includes contract rights, and that is
exactly what the subject is here.

		--Dean




On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Member Services wrote:

> The Legacy Registration Services Agreement (RSA), first referenced in the 11 October 2007 announcement, 
> has been posted to the ARIN website at: http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf.
> 
> A Frequently Asked Questions document is also available to assist the community at:
> http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/legacy_rsa_faq.html
> 
> An implementation date will be announced in the near future.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Raymond A. Plzak
> President & CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   








From dean at av8.com  Sun Oct 14 01:29:52 2007
From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0710132251410.21462@ns.istop.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710132317210.21887-100000@citation2.av8.net>


For Legacies, There is a document, which is like a certificate, which
gives permission to use an IP block.  Permission to use property is the
definition of a license. A license is right to use property.  A license
is a property right without ownership.  Property can be intangible, like
numbers, where the numbers are significant for an activity.

A lease is a agreement that includes the right to profit from property,
without an ownership right in the property.  Legacies have the right to
profit from the use of IP Address Blocks.  A lease may be perpetual.  
Legacies also have the ability and exclusive right to transfer IP Blocks
to others. This was accomplished by a Transfer Request, a special DOD
form.  Transferability is a contract right.

IP Address Blocks contain both license and lease rights, so they are a
hybrid of license and lease. The lease contract terms are unwritten, but
understood and defined through practice and long performance.

BTW, there is a reason the RSA includes a provision where both parties
agree that there are no property rights. This provision does not change
the fundamental nature of IP Blocks, nor does it apply, in particular,
to Legacy assignments. This provision just means that issues depending
on property rights cannot be raised by mutual agreement. If you haven't
agreed to this provision (as Legacies haven't) it doesn't apply.

But, indeed, certain kinds of contracts can be binding without
consideration, for example, promissory estoppel.  I wish had the
complete Restatement of Contracts, handy, rather than a study guide.  
No consideration is needed for a lease, and no consideration is
necessary for a license.  The GPL is a good example of a license with no
consideration.


		--Dean



On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Ralph Doncaster wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
> > Legacy's have 20+ years of performance to establish their claims. Even
> > if there were no written documents, that's proof enough to establish the
> > claim; If there are no documents, and if the documents are actually
> > vague and unspecific, then past performance defines the undefined terms.
> 
> My understanding of contract law is that it requires an offer, acceptance,
> and consideration.  It seems legacy users accepted an offer of an
> assignment of IP space, but for those who got it for free I don't see
> evidence of consideration.
> 
> For legacy's that got their assignment for free, what would their claim be
> based on if not contract law?
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   









From dlw+arin at tellme.com  Sun Oct 14 12:23:16 2007
From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:23:16 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Fee discussion
In-Reply-To: <5D871CFD-2DA2-4C84-B45F-CC174744546E@adhost.com>
References: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407415C7C@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>
	<a06240804c3357ba1f69f@[192.168.1.100]>
	<5D871CFD-2DA2-4C84-B45F-CC174744546E@adhost.com>
Message-ID: <20071014162316.GR23649@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com>

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:35:13PM -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
> "Yes," for some.  :-)  There are many providers who accept default  
> routes but still announce ARIN-assigned address space, and many of  
> these smaller players see ARIN fees as a real line item in their  
> budget.   However, for the 'multi-homing to the DFZ' amongst us, I  
> doubt the fees are felt much in comparison to acquiring the hardware  
> necessary to accept a routing table that continues to grow.

Your first statement came as a mild surprise to me.  Perhaps it shows
some bias on my part, but I find it hard to imagine qualifying for
PA/PI space directly from ARIN, but not having complete control of your
own routing (i.e., participating in the DFZ).

>From my point of view, ARIN fees are sufficiently down in the noise
that they are, ironically, a mild problem.  Big ticket items have a
budget line-item and a clear purchase process (approvals, POs, etc.).
Small charges aren't directly budgeted, so we have to sort out which
expense budget is going to pick it up, and who's got a corp credit card
to charge for the fees.

Sure, we aren't talking about large or extra-large fees, but the small
allocation fees don't seem notably onerous.  For the moment, I don't
see a strong need to change the fee schedule, although I think some
changes will be needed over the next few years, especially if we want
to use fees as a method for slowing IPv4 uptake.  (I think that would
be a mistake, however.)  If anything is necessary now, lowering fees
for small users would help the folks in the category that Michael
described above.  I doubt anyone who has medium or larger allocations
sees lowering fees as a necessity, although I'm sure everyone would
appreciate the same service for less cost. :)

This discussion has been mildly interesting, and I would support
periodic rehashing of the fee structure, but it seems to be a topic
that inspires particularly low signal to noise ratios on the relevant
lists.  I know I've started simply tuning out specific posters on this
topic.  (Here's a hint, kids: make your point, prefereably using actual
data, and then shut up.  You'll never convince those who don't agree
with your interpretation by arguing with them, and you'll lose some of
your audience in the process.)

-David


From ml at t-b-o-h.net  Tue Oct 23 17:31:53 2007
From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:31:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA from arin-announce question
In-Reply-To: <470E93CD.4080506@arin.net>
Message-ID: <200710232131.l9NLVrtI018940@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com>

> 
> On 17 October 2007 ARIN will release an additional version of the 
> Registration Services Agreement ("RSA") that will be offered to those 
> organizations and individuals in the ARIN service region who hold legacy 
> Internet number resources that are not covered by any other registration 
> services agreement with ARIN. Legacy holders who sign up are guaranteed 
> the same services as ARIN members. The low annual fees charged may be 
> waived if the organization returns unused address space. This legacy RSA 
> also contractually promises ARIN Internet number resource policies 
> adopted after the contract is signed will not lessen the legacy RSA 
> address holder?s contract rights.
> 
> This legacy RSA will be described during presentations at the upcoming 
> NANOG meeting, ARIN Public Policy Meeting, and ARIN Members meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Raymond A. Plzak
> President & CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
Hi,

	I don't think this has been mentioned yet....

	I took an informal survey of some of the people that had
been granted Legacy space... Some IPs weren't currently routed.
Some emails bounced. Some had no idea what/who ARIN was. Some
were in their own little world and aren't on NANOG, ARIN lists,
ISP-* lists, etc. One had moved twice and never updated his contact
information.

	So how are all the people to which this applies going to
be contacted?

		Thanks, Tuc/TBOH


From david.picard at sogetel.com  Wed Oct 24 08:44:12 2007
From: david.picard at sogetel.com (David Picard)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:44:12 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA from arin-announce question
In-Reply-To: <200710232131.l9NLVrtI018940@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com>
Message-ID: <BFEAJLBEENOMPDBLCKBEIEPIEOAA.david.picard@sogetel.com>

2 words:

Good Luck!

David Picard
---------------------------------------------
Administrateur reseau / Network administrator
Internet Galilee
www.sogetel.net

david.picard at sogetel.com
1-866-764-3835 x1271
1-819-293-1271



"CONFIDENTIALITE  Ce document transmis par courrier electronique est destine
uniquement a la personne ou a l'entite a qui il est adresse et peut contenir
 des renseignements confidentiels.  La confidentialite demeure malgre
l'envoi de ce document a la mauvaise adresse electronique.  Si vous n'etes
pas le destinataire vise ou la personne chargee de remettre ce document a
son destinataire, veuillez nous en informer sans delai et detruire ce
document.  Toute distribution, reproduction ou autre utilisation de ce
document est interdite sans notre consentement."


-----Message d'origine-----
De : arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]De la part de Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET
Envoye : 23 octobre 2007 17:32
A : arin-discuss at arin.net
Objet : [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA from arin-announce question


>
> On 17 October 2007 ARIN will release an additional version of the
> Registration Services Agreement ("RSA") that will be offered to those
> organizations and individuals in the ARIN service region who hold legacy
> Internet number resources that are not covered by any other registration
> services agreement with ARIN. Legacy holders who sign up are guaranteed
> the same services as ARIN members. The low annual fees charged may be
> waived if the organization returns unused address space. This legacy RSA
> also contractually promises ARIN Internet number resource policies
> adopted after the contract is signed will not lessen the legacy RSA
> address holders contract rights.
>
> This legacy RSA will be described during presentations at the upcoming
> NANOG meeting, ARIN Public Policy Meeting, and ARIN Members meeting.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raymond A. Plzak
> President & CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
Hi,

	I don't think this has been mentioned yet....

	I took an informal survey of some of the people that had
been granted Legacy space... Some IPs weren't currently routed.
Some emails bounced. Some had no idea what/who ARIN was. Some
were in their own little world and aren't on NANOG, ARIN lists,
ISP-* lists, etc. One had moved twice and never updated his contact
information.

	So how are all the people to which this applies going to
be contacted?

		Thanks, Tuc/TBOH




From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Oct 24 13:41:04 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:41:04 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA from arin-announce question
In-Reply-To: <200710232131.l9NLVrtI018940@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOMEEKHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET
>Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:32 PM
>To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA from arin-announce question
>
>
>>
>> On 17 October 2007 ARIN will release an additional version of the
>> Registration Services Agreement ("RSA") that will be offered to those
>> organizations and individuals in the ARIN service region who hold legacy
>> Internet number resources that are not covered by any other registration
>> services agreement with ARIN. Legacy holders who sign up are guaranteed
>> the same services as ARIN members. The low annual fees charged may be
>> waived if the organization returns unused address space. This legacy RSA
>> also contractually promises ARIN Internet number resource policies
>> adopted after the contract is signed will not lessen the legacy RSA
>> address holders contract rights.
>>
>> This legacy RSA will be described during presentations at the upcoming
>> NANOG meeting, ARIN Public Policy Meeting, and ARIN Members meeting.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Raymond A. Plzak
>> President & CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>Hi,
>
>	I don't think this has been mentioned yet....
>
>	I took an informal survey of some of the people that had
>been granted Legacy space... Some IPs weren't currently routed.
>Some emails bounced. Some had no idea what/who ARIN was. Some
>were in their own little world and aren't on NANOG, ARIN lists,
>ISP-* lists, etc. One had moved twice and never updated his contact
>information.
>
>	So how are all the people to which this applies going to
>be contacted?


They aren't.  But this is just the first step, we still have a LOT of
work to do.  You got to see the big picture.

Next thing that really needs to happen is we need to write policy or ARIN
needs to setup a mechanism whereby AFTER IPv4 runout, people who
need IPv4 and who put the effort into finding non-routed Legacy assignments,
owned by Legacy holders who don't care if the numbers are used or not,
can get rewarded by getting those numbers assigned to them under RSA. (as
per
the utilization requirements of the RSA of course)  They would
have to provide contact info and ARIN would have to verify that the Legacy
holder is willing to give up the assignment.  Naturally, since we aren't
in post-IPv4 runout period yet, there's no immediate need for this, but
we should all be thinking about it.

After that, then we need to write a policy that says that legacy allocations
that aren't advertised can be withdrawn if the legacy holder cannot prove
to an RIR that they are being used.  This is the same as the regular
RSA.

After that, we then need to write policy that basically dictates that any
Legacy holder who is currently advertising Legacy holdings MUST update their
whois record with current data, OR risk losing their assignment.  We will
have to probably require any ISP that is advertising a Legacy assignment
to provide contact info for the legacy holder so ARIN can reach them and
inform them of the requirements.  (This assumes of course that the
advertising
ISP is itself an RSA signatory)

And finally we are just going to have to mandate that all Legacy holders
MUST
meet utilization requirements.  Basically they will have to abide by the
terms of the "regular" RSA or ARIN will de-list their allocations.

Whether ARIN then proceeds to re-assign those allocations is a different
matter -
I would assume that initially, ARIN won't.  The failure of PTR lookups on
such
address blocks should be enough to prompt the Legacy holder to get with the
program

Anyway, I think you can see where this all is heading.  Ultimately the goal
is
not to withdraw Legacy holdings - the goal is to make sure that ALL ipv4
that
is out there is efficiently utilized.  Signatories to the regular RSA are
already under utilization requirements, the Legacy holders are the
wildcards - but
in the grand scheme of things, as long as a Legacy holder is efficiently
utilizing
and can prove to us that they are doing so the same as an RSA signatory can
prove to us that they are efficiently utilizing, then that is all we can
really
do.

Ted



From jlewis at atlantic.net  Wed Oct 24 16:58:22 2007
From: jlewis at atlantic.net (jlewis at atlantic.net)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA from arin-announce question
In-Reply-To: <200710232131.l9NLVrtI018940@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com>
References: <200710232131.l9NLVrtI018940@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710241651180.16135@solo.atlantic.net>

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:

> 	I took an informal survey of some of the people that had
> been granted Legacy space... Some IPs weren't currently routed.
> Some emails bounced. Some had no idea what/who ARIN was. Some
> were in their own little world and aren't on NANOG, ARIN lists,
> ISP-* lists, etc. One had moved twice and never updated his contact
> information.

Even better, what happens to legacy allocations when the person to whom 
the space was allocated had died, but the space continues to be routed?
I'm familiar with one case of this, and I don't doubt there are many more.

Is it worth trying to reclaim these small IP blocks?...perhaps just to get 
them out of the global routing table?  Does anyone have the authority to 
do so?  When Internic used to hand out PI to anyone who asked properly, 
was there any time limit on assignments...or is space assigned to an 
individual to be passed on as property to their heirs?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis <jlewis at atlantic.net>|
  Senior Network Engineer        |
  Atlantic.net                   |
________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key__________


From tedm at ipinc.net  Thu Oct 25 16:16:31 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:16:31 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA from arin-announce question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710241651180.16135@solo.atlantic.net>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOAEEPHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of jlewis at atlantic.net
>Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:58 PM
>To: Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA from arin-announce question
>
>
>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
>
>> 	I took an informal survey of some of the people that had
>> been granted Legacy space... Some IPs weren't currently routed.
>> Some emails bounced. Some had no idea what/who ARIN was. Some
>> were in their own little world and aren't on NANOG, ARIN lists,
>> ISP-* lists, etc. One had moved twice and never updated his contact
>> information.
>
>Even better, what happens to legacy allocations when the person to whom
>the space was allocated had died, but the space continues to be routed?

Most dead people I've ever known are really terrible at paying bills,
I think that's why they call them deadbeats...

I assume that the ISP that is doing the routing is billing the dead
guy, and eventually is going to figure it out and disconnect him.

Otherwise, please tell me this ISP's name so I can get free service too...

>I'm familiar with one case of this, and I don't doubt there are many more.
>
>Is it worth trying to reclaim these small IP blocks?...perhaps just to get
>them out of the global routing table?  Does anyone have the authority to
>do so?

Your simply asking if the RIR's have authority to revoke legacy assignments
in a different way, and we have already been discussing/arguing about that
for months if not years.

>When Internic used to hand out PI to anyone who asked properly,
>was there any time limit on assignments...or is space assigned to an
>individual to be passed on as property to their heirs?

If the space was assigned to a corporate entity then as corporations
have a legal existence that is separate from a person (and cannot die of
biological causes like a person) as long as the corporation continues
to exist, the assignment is unchanged by the death of a member of that
corporation, whether or not the corporation is willed to an heir.

If the space was assigned to a person, the original agreement (whether
written down or implied) was with that person - and when that person
ceases to exist, the agreement becomes void.

That's why, for example, that if I owe a lot of money to a bank and
die of heart failure, and if my estate then becomes exhausted
paying the bank claims and there's still money owing, the bank cannot
come after my children and claim that my contract with the bank is now
my childrens responsibility because it was part of the estate, etc.

Of course, in practice if an heir merely contacted ARIN and updated
contact information, it would not be easy for an outsider to figure
out that the heir now had no contractual rights to the numbering.  Once
more, though, this gets into the argument of whether ARIN is legally
obligated to contracts that it's predicessor may have issued on numbering
assignments.  If ARIN isn't obligated, the issue is moot as ARIN can
simply declare the current Legacy holder to have no legal right to
the assignment without signing an RSA.  If ARIN -is-
obligated, then if the current contact on PI space could not produce
documentation that they were the same person who was originally listed on
the original numbering contract, they would have no legal right to
the legacy numbers.

I wonder if John Postel had any PI space issued to himself? ;-)

Ted



From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Tue Oct 30 09:22:06 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:22:06 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710300606190.22512-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4076F15A6@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:13 AM
> To: Dean Anderson
> Cc: Howard, W. Lee; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on 
> Legacy assignments?
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> > 
> > > > RADB is a Merit project. 
> > > 
> > > The budget line item says "Merit/NANOG Meeting Support"
> > > http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
> > 
> > Merit and Nanog are separate entities.  Which one was supported?
> 
> I never got an answer to this.  I've heard a couple stories, 
> which don't seem to match well the check recipient and what 
> the Mr. Lee says the board was told.

It's Mr. Howard, there's a comma in my display name.  
Howard, W. Lee. =  W. Lee Howard
It's a convention my company uses.  

See section 4, "Relationship to Merit Network, Inc." of the 
NANOG charter, http://www.nanog.org/charter.html 

 
> Where can I find the presentation to the board and the board 
> resolution authorizing this money?

Anyone can search Board meeting minutes at
 http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/bot/index.html

You can also see the current budget, and our audited financial
statements, on ARIN's web site.

Several people at the ARIN meeting went out of their way to
tell me they appreciated the joint meeting.  A few have said
so in private email.  I encourage all concerned members of
the community to attend the Spring meeting.

Lee


From dean at av8.net  Wed Oct 31 03:40:18 2007
From: dean at av8.net (Dean Anderson)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
In-Reply-To: <000701c80ceb$8d6da480$0401a8c0@Macintosh>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310304560.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>

I attended VON in Boston today, and quite unexpectedly ran into the ARIN
booth.  I met Einar Bohlin and Jon Worley.  I have several unfavorable
comments, but I want to emphasize that Einar and Jon were both very
congenial.  The negative aspect of my comments have nothing whatsoever
to do with there personal performance.  We had a quite enjoyable
discussion about IPv6 and allocation policy and what it will take to get
IPv6 off the ground.

Concern:

They mentioned they thought that ARIN was going to begin accepting
Legacy RSA agreements this week. I had understood that ARIN was going to
solicit more community input and formal legal opinion before proceeding
on the matter. Some clarification would be appreciated.

Negative comments:

There was virtually no one at VON (Voice on the Net) who had anything
whatsoever to do with anything related to ARIN or IP Address
Registration.  I attended with a couple of clients who perform carrier
services. My client who was with me, was bored to tears and showed up 10
minutes later with the other person, when they finished with the block
of booths where ARIN was. This gave me a chance to talk with Einar and
Jon, which was pleasant. But when my clients showed up, one asked (he
was joking) what ARIN had to do with telephony systems.  ARIN obviously
had nothing to do with telephony, which put the whole boondoggle into
focus.  The people who come to VON, come to see and/or buy VOIP products
and services. This has nothing to do with ARIN.

A for-profit company spends marketing dollars expecting to reach the
market that will buy its services. There was no market for ARIN at VON.  
ARIN is a market monopolist; there is only one registry in North America
and so there is no "market" for its services to compete in.  There is no
one who needs IP Address blocks, but says "I can't get them. I don't
know who to ask"  Certainly they can't say "Hmm. RIPE, LacNIC, or ARIN.  
RIPE and LacNIC didn't come to VON. I'll buy from ARIN, I like their
registry services better".

This was just a junket; part of that $400,000 or so 46% increase in the
travel budget that I cited a couple weeks ago. Done under the euphemism
of "outreach".  These trade shows are indeed a lot of fun. I wish I had
an extra $400,000 to spend attending trade shows, staying in nice
hotels, flying around. Parties are always great when you have no sales
quotas to meet.  But these trade shows are a total, complete waste of
ARIN resources.  A non-profit company is expected to be a steward for
the benefit of the public interest and its defined purpose. The public
interest is not served here, and it is hard to find anything that is
served in the charter of ARIN.

But otherwise, I enjoyed the chance to talk to Einar and Jon, especially
after I felt I couldn't attend Albuquerque because of the unrestrained
presence of persons from Nanog who have made physical threats of
violence against me.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




From rs at seastrom.com  Wed Oct 31 08:02:39 2007
From: rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:02:39 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310304560.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>
	(Dean Anderson's message of "Wed,
	31 Oct 2007 03:40:18 -0400 (EDT)")
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310304560.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <86pryvpk4g.fsf@seastrom.com>


Dean Anderson <dean at av8.net> writes:

> This was just a junket; part of that $400,000 or so 46% increase in the
> travel budget that I cited a couple weeks ago. Done under the euphemism
> of "outreach".  These trade shows are indeed a lot of fun. I wish I had
> an extra $400,000 to spend attending trade shows, staying in nice
> hotels, flying around. Parties are always great when you have no sales
> quotas to meet.  
 
Dean, I try to avoid responding to your mail since I don't like 
feeding trolls...  but if you think that *working* a trade show (as 
opposed to *attending* a trade show) is anything resembling "fun", 
well, that's just the voice of inexperience speaking.  If ARIN were 
looking for junkets, I'd be disappointed if they couldn't find a 
better destination than Boston in late October. 

> But otherwise, I enjoyed the chance to talk to Einar and Jon, especially
> after I felt I couldn't attend Albuquerque because of the unrestrained
> presence of persons from Nanog who have made physical threats of
> violence against me.

I don't seem to suffer these difficulties.  Maybe it's you.

                                        ---Rob



From michael.dillon at bt.com  Wed Oct 31 10:58:00 2007
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:58:00 -0000
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310304560.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <000701c80ceb$8d6da480$0401a8c0@Macintosh>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310304560.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0014B407B@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>

> A for-profit company spends marketing dollars expecting to 
> reach the market that will buy its services. There was no 
> market for ARIN at VON.  

And ARIN is not a for-profit company. Your point?

> ARIN is a market monopolist; there is only one registry in 
> North America and so there is no "market" for its services to 
> compete in.  

ARIN happens to be an incorporated organization with a charter
which tells its management what they should be doing overall. That
charter includes educational outreach, and since VoIP services
are becoming a large user of IP addresses, which are in very short
supply unless they use the v6 flavor, it seems highly appropriate
for ARIN to be at a VoIP event.

> This was just a junket; part of that $400,000 or so 46% 
> increase in the travel budget that I cited a couple weeks 
> ago. Done under the euphemism of "outreach".  These trade 
> shows are indeed a lot of fun. I wish I had an extra $400,000 
> to spend attending trade shows, staying in nice hotels, 
> flying around.

Don't we all wish that we could go on junkets like politicians
and political lobbyists and NGO workers do. If that's what you really
want, then start sending out resumes. The rest of us look at the
pittance
that ARIN charges for services, are well up to speed about the cost
of attending conferences, and are willing to live with "expensive" 
outreach services that only cost our organizations a few bucks a year.
It's all about costs and benefits.

> But otherwise, I enjoyed the chance to talk to Einar and Jon, 
> especially after I felt I couldn't attend Albuquerque because 
> of the unrestrained presence of persons from Nanog who have 
> made physical threats of violence against me.

You should have gone to ABQ and laughed in their faces. In a hotel
with security guards on site 24/7, what could they do?

--Michael Dillon


From jcurran at istaff.org  Wed Oct 31 13:21:22 2007
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:21:22 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310304560.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310304560.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <p06240800c34e655a7cf2@[192.168.16.4]>

At 3:40 AM -0400 10/31/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>There was virtually no one at VON (Voice on the Net) who had anything
>whatsoever to do with anything related to ARIN or IP Address
>Registration.  I attended with a couple of clients who perform carrier
>services. My client who was with me, was bored to tears and showed up 10
>minutes later with the other person, when they finished with the block
>of booths where ARIN was. This gave me a chance to talk with Einar and
>Jon, which was pleasant. But when my clients showed up, one asked (he
>was joking) what ARIN had to do with telephony systems.  ARIN obviously
>had nothing to do with telephony, which put the whole boondoggle into
>focus.  The people who come to VON, come to see and/or buy VOIP products
>and services. This has nothing to do with ARIN.

Dean -
 
   There's a lot of applications which utilize IP addresses that aren't
   necessarily broadly affected by the upcoming IPv4 depletion and
   transition to IPv6.  Examples of these include things like medical
   applications, manufacturing equipment, etc...  While they use IP
   technology, and may or may not move to IPv6, it's not required
   that they do so if their operating model is disconnected islands.

   There are several dozen ISP's and hosted service providers at VON
   (and countless vendors building VoIP equipment for them) which
   need to be aware of the upcoming change in availability of IPv4
   address space from ARIN.   These needs to occur with enough
   time that they can engage in adequate product and service
   planning activities, as there real business implications of the
   free pool depletion and IPv6 introduction for such folks.

   The ARIN community asked us at multiple meetings to engage
   in more outreach regarding IPv6, and we are doing so.  This
   includes having ARIN at various ISP, web hosting, and Internet
   events.  From your email, I believe that you feel this is not a
   worthwhile use of ARIN resources, and I appreciate that your  
   raising a concern on this list.   To the extent that others feel
   the same way, I encourage them to speak up here or at the
   public meetings, since our guidance to date as clear been just
   the opposite.

Thanks!
/John


From asawchuk at colospace.com  Wed Oct 31 13:28:30 2007
From: asawchuk at colospace.com (Aaron Sawchuk)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:28:30 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
In-Reply-To: <p06240800c34e655a7cf2@[192.168.16.4]>
Message-ID: <CF413A2D589E6D438B37AA9FCEF777E150E2CE@newman.colospace.local>

Regardless of the content of the show content specifics, we were happy
to see them come to Boston.  In fact, they were one of the reasons we
decided to attend VON after all.  

There is something to be said for putting a face to an e-mail address
and to have it happen in our backyard made the organization feel a lot
more accessible.

Regards,

--Aaron

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:21 PM
To: Dean Anderson
Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA

At 3:40 AM -0400 10/31/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>There was virtually no one at VON (Voice on the Net) who had anything
>whatsoever to do with anything related to ARIN or IP Address
>Registration.  I attended with a couple of clients who perform carrier
>services. My client who was with me, was bored to tears and showed up
10
>minutes later with the other person, when they finished with the block
>of booths where ARIN was. This gave me a chance to talk with Einar and
>Jon, which was pleasant. But when my clients showed up, one asked (he
>was joking) what ARIN had to do with telephony systems.  ARIN obviously
>had nothing to do with telephony, which put the whole boondoggle into
>focus.  The people who come to VON, come to see and/or buy VOIP
products
>and services. This has nothing to do with ARIN.

Dean -
 
   There's a lot of applications which utilize IP addresses that aren't
   necessarily broadly affected by the upcoming IPv4 depletion and
   transition to IPv6.  Examples of these include things like medical
   applications, manufacturing equipment, etc...  While they use IP
   technology, and may or may not move to IPv6, it's not required
   that they do so if their operating model is disconnected islands.

   There are several dozen ISP's and hosted service providers at VON
   (and countless vendors building VoIP equipment for them) which
   need to be aware of the upcoming change in availability of IPv4
   address space from ARIN.   These needs to occur with enough
   time that they can engage in adequate product and service
   planning activities, as there real business implications of the
   free pool depletion and IPv6 introduction for such folks.

   The ARIN community asked us at multiple meetings to engage
   in more outreach regarding IPv6, and we are doing so.  This
   includes having ARIN at various ISP, web hosting, and Internet
   events.  From your email, I believe that you feel this is not a
   worthwhile use of ARIN resources, and I appreciate that your  
   raising a concern on this list.   To the extent that others feel
   the same way, I encourage them to speak up here or at the
   public meetings, since our guidance to date as clear been just
   the opposite.

Thanks!
/John
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the
ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From tedm at ipinc.net  Wed Oct 31 13:34:02 2007
From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:34:02 -0700
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310304560.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOOEFPHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:40 AM
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
>
>
>I attended VON in Boston today, and quite unexpectedly ran into the ARIN
>booth.  I met Einar Bohlin and Jon Worley.  I have several unfavorable

>This was just a junket; part of that $400,000 or so 46% increase in the
>travel budget that I cited a couple weeks ago. Done under the euphemism
>of "outreach".  These trade shows are indeed a lot of fun. I wish I had
>an extra $400,000 to spend attending trade shows, staying in nice
>hotels, flying around. Parties are always great when you have no sales
>quotas to meet.  But these trade shows are a total, complete waste of
>ARIN resources.  A non-profit company is expected to be a steward for
>the benefit of the public interest and its defined purpose. The public
>interest is not served here, and it is hard to find anything that is
>served in the charter of ARIN.
>
>But otherwise, I enjoyed the chance to talk to Einar and Jon, especially
>after I felt I couldn't attend Albuquerque

I felt I couldn't attend the NM meeting either because it was "just a
junket"
so I observed over the Web - and after watching the 3 days of it, it merely
confirmed my initial feelings about it.  The web feed was definitely
a far better use of my time!

These trade shows are a form of advertising.  And the important thing
to keep in mind about advertising is that over 50% of your advertising
dollars are going to be wasted no matter how much advance preparation
you do.

I don't call it irresponsible for ARIN to show up at this trade show,
but I would call it irresponsible for them to show up at this show more than
once, now that they have seen that there isn't anything there for them.
I get a lot of advertising for trade shows and it's usually a bald faced
pack of lies, until you actually go there
and visit you don't really know squat about it.

TEd



From stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com  Wed Oct 31 16:37:32 2007
From: stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com (stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:37:32 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
In-Reply-To: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOOEFPHEAA.tedm@ipinc.net>
Message-ID: <OFD0FA10A6.EA4DD25D-ON85257385.007013AE-85257385.00714D15@CORE.VERIZON.COM>

To quote Ted Mittelstaedt:

"I don't call it irresponsible for ARIN to show up at this trade show,
but I would call it irresponsible for them to show up at this show more 
than
once, now that they have seen that there isn't anything there for them.
I get a lot of advertising for trade shows and it's usually a bald faced
pack of lies, until you actually go there and visit you don't really know 
squat about it."

That assumes ARIN has found that there isn't anything at this particular 
trade show for them.  I will agree that many such events will need to be 
visited by ARIN staff to evaluate whether or not there is an opportunity 
for community outreach. 

In either case, I feel comfortable in leaving that judgement up to ARIN 
staff. 

Stephen Middleton





"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> 
Sent by: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
10/31/2007 01:34 PM

To
"Dean Anderson" <dean at av8.net>
cc
arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject
Re: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA








>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:40 AM
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Legacy RSA
>
>
>I attended VON in Boston today, and quite unexpectedly ran into the ARIN
>booth.  I met Einar Bohlin and Jon Worley.  I have several unfavorable

>This was just a junket; part of that $400,000 or so 46% increase in the
>travel budget that I cited a couple weeks ago. Done under the euphemism
>of "outreach".  These trade shows are indeed a lot of fun. I wish I had
>an extra $400,000 to spend attending trade shows, staying in nice
>hotels, flying around. Parties are always great when you have no sales
>quotas to meet.  But these trade shows are a total, complete waste of
>ARIN resources.  A non-profit company is expected to be a steward for
>the benefit of the public interest and its defined purpose. The public
>interest is not served here, and it is hard to find anything that is
>served in the charter of ARIN.
>
>But otherwise, I enjoyed the chance to talk to Einar and Jon, especially
>after I felt I couldn't attend Albuquerque

I felt I couldn't attend the NM meeting either because it was "just a
junket"
so I observed over the Web - and after watching the 3 days of it, it 
merely
confirmed my initial feelings about it.  The web feed was definitely
a far better use of my time!

These trade shows are a form of advertising.  And the important thing
to keep in mind about advertising is that over 50% of your advertising
dollars are going to be wasted no matter how much advance preparation
you do.

I don't call it irresponsible for ARIN to show up at this trade show,
but I would call it irresponsible for them to show up at this show more 
than
once, now that they have seen that there isn't anything there for them.
I get a lot of advertising for trade shows and it's usually a bald faced
pack of lies, until you actually go there
and visit you don't really know squat about it.

TEd

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the 
ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20071031/93fac847/attachment.html>

From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com  Wed Oct 31 17:02:52 2007
From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:02:52 -0400
Subject: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0710310205510.17354-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB407762F97@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com>


> -  Was the community ever asked about supporting Nanog?

It is not customary to poll the community for every expenditure.
That's why the community elects representatives, so every
network engineer doesn't have to vote on every expense.  We
publish our budget and financial statements, exactly so 
members of the community can provide this kind of feedback.  
Your opposition to this line item has been noted, and is
considered along with the opinions of others.
 
> -  Why should ARIN support Nanog?

See my previous response to this question, 
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2007-October/000498.html
NANOG is a valuable service to the community.  Participation
is better with joint meetings.  Participation is better with
a webcast.  See also the last clause of ARIN's mission 
statement at www.arin.net.

> > Several people at the ARIN meeting went out of their way to tell me
> > they appreciated the joint meeting.  A few have said so in private
> > email.  I encourage all concerned members of the community to attend
> > the Spring meeting.
> 
> "Several people" and cronyism with ARIN board members, does 
> not seem to
> justify the benefits being transferred from ARIN to Nanog, when ARIN
> members including myself can't participate in Nanog, 

To date, expressions of support for these activites has been
predominantly favorable.  If there are others who believe
ARIN should redirect its resources, I hope they will contribute
to this thread, or email the Board member of their choosing.

I'll point out again that ARIN's contribution is specifically
in support of the webcast, to provide benefit to the entire
membership.


Lee