[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Review Process

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> > But option c. is just begging for trouble "without cause". It gives an
> > unlimited power to review the private customer data of a recipient
> > "without cause" once a year.
> 
> The RSA already gives ARIN unlimited power to conduct reviews as often
> as they want.  Go read it; it's enlightening.

Oh. So then we don't need this policy at all.  Right?

But you said 2a and 2b equal the RSA. Section 2c expands the RSA.

But whatever the RSA, we don't need it in this policy.

> This proposal seeks to put a _limit_ on that power and create process
> around how it's conducted.

Oh. So you think the RSA needs to be _limited_.  I see. (scribbling
notes)

Hmm. I don't see any limits being placed anywhere.

> Any member complying with that policy will be exempt from "without
> cause" reviews

Maybe you want to re-parse the phrase "without cause". That phrase
"without cause" doesn't mean "those who are even minimally complying
with policy are exempt".  It means anyone can be reviewed "without
cause". End of story.  I don't know whether you are just dumb or
dishonest in your assurances.

> if they're even minimally growing, even if they are getting twice the
> address space per round that policy allows.  Those who are shrinking
> deserve a review.

I don't know why that should be. If they are still in business, they
will probably grow again.  Your premises don't seem to be very well
justified, nor discussed much.

> > ARIN shouldn't be doing anything without cause and justification.
> > One wonders why that would ever be good policy in any circumstance.
> 
> ARIN's charter dictates stewardship.

Yes. Stewardship doesn't include harassment and ulterior motives.

> Since we're getting dangerously close to running out of v4 addresses,

Another assertion that we've heard repeatedly since at least 1994.  Its
just a scare tactic that doesn't seem to be true this time either, since
ARIN has reduced the criteria for getting a block.  ARIN is _trying_ to
give out more space, faster.  If we are actually running out of IP
addresses, maybe ARIN should slow down the rate it is giving out address
space.  There seems to be a disconnect between these two efforts.  Or is
it maybe just simply dishonest ulterior purposes?

> > The total legacy allocations do not amount to much. The amount of
> > _unused_ legacy allocations do not amount to a drip in the bucket.
> 
> As far as we're able to tell without reviews, roughly half of legacy
> resources are unused.

This seems to be a pretty dubious claim to me.  Perhaps you could find
some facts before making unsubstantiated claims.

> > There are some _bad_ reasons that Vixie cronies want this.
> 
> I'd think twice before accusing me of being a Vixie crony.

I think one is a vixie crony when they associate with Vixie and his
other cronies. I've had enough dealing with you and Owen in other forums
to claim that you both are a Vixie cronies.  If you don't like the
label, you should choose your associates more carefully.

> I've had very few dealings with him over the years, and his most
> recent response to me (in another forum) was that I'd called him a
> liar.  That's not quite what I said, but I stand by my original
> statement that inspired his comment.  In any case, I'm hardly an
> ardent supporter; he's just another guy to me, one I disagree with as
> often as we agree.

I'm dubious of your asserted 'anti-Vixie' credentials. I heard almost
the same claim from ISC employee Rob Austein in a conflict of interest
issue on the DNSOP WG. In that case, Vixie, David Crocker, and others
mounted an attack on a proposal to by Thierry Moreau.  Crocker
(previously pro-patent in other patent disputes)  complained that
Moreau's proposal was patented.(?!?)

Austein, as chair, __directed__ the working group to ignore Moreau's
proposal.  This direction is unusual by itself, and is not permitted
except when a WG can't agree, which wasn't the case. Moreau and myself
complained that this was a conflict of interest for Austein, and an
inappropriate use of the chair powers.  Vixie said that Austein was just
a regular guy who wouldn't do what he said anyway. (I'm still laughing
at this "assurance" from Vixie)

Ted Lemon (of Nomimum, one of the so-called BIND companies) wrote me
off-list that Moreau's proposal was unethical and that I should
criticize Moreau. I reviewed Moreau's proposal and all of Moreau's
messages on the topic; Moreau, in his first message, disclosed the
patent, offered a free, unlimited, and universal license to the patented
technology.

Now remember, I'm the President of the League for Programming Freedom,
which is an anti-patent organization founded by Richard Stallman.  
Moreau's patent terms are as good as it gets.  Moreau was in no way
unethical in any of his messages on the subject.  It is still a mystery
as to why the Vixie cronies oppose Moreau's proposal, which seems to
improve the security of Root DNSSEC operations.  I can't imagine why
they would want to have weaker security.

Ron Bonica, the IETF/IESG supervisor of Mr. Austein, in an exchange that
I'm going to be documenting as _the_ example of unscrupulous behavior,
asserted without reason or rationale that there was no conflict of
interest for Austein, and then asserted that business law (conflict of
interest) didn't apply to the IETF because it wasn't documented in an
RFC. Oddly, I've heard this claim from Owen before, but Owen isn't a
senior manager at a public non-profit with responsibility to the public
interest.  Bonica, interestingly, now at Juniper (but not a manager),
was previously a senior manager at MCI.

["unscrupulous" means to not give proper consideration to an ethics
issue.]

So, I'm just a little dubious of these kinds of disingenuous claims of
non-influence.  We have to be alert for abuse of the public interest for
ulterior purposes.


> Just because you and Paul have some long-standing antipathy doesn't mean
> that everyone who doesn't hate him is part of some conspiracy against you.

Indeed, it is not required to hate him in order to not participate in a
conspiracy against me (and others).  However, it is required to have
good justifications for doing things that hurt me and others, and help
Vixie. Your justifications don't hold water and your premises aren't
valid.


> Neither Owen nor I have any ulterior motives in this matter; the
> policy's intent is exactly what its plain text says and the rationale
> explains.

Easy to say. Every criminal says they didn't _intend_ any harm. However,
intent is determined by the certain, foreseeable consequences of an
action.  When the consequences are certain and foreseeable, you intend
the consequences.

And your rationale doesn't hold water.

> If it happens to offend some spammers because they know they wouldn't
> survive a review, that is not my problem.

Ah ha. There it is.  Vixie and cronies (who are actually long-time
spammers through whitehat.com)  is again trying to act dishonestly and
unfairly against his competition.  Sanford Wallace also sold anti-spam
software. Vixie just stole Wallace's business plan, while pretending to
be anti-spam. (http://www.iadl.org/maps/maps-story.html)

But if you are so concerned with possible waste, maybe you would explain
why ISC.ORG has 146,000+ IP addresses when Vixie says it isn't even in
the Internet service business.  Hmm?  Or maybe ISC _is_ in the Internet
service business, after all.

> I'm only interested in folks that are hoarding addresses they no
> longer have any justification for, no longer exist, etc.  The size of
> that target pool is irrelevant; we're rapidly approaching the point
> where even a /24 will be valuable, and we have a duty to reduce
> blatant waste.

And by what criteria do you decide waste and hoarding?  If a /24 really
is valuable, then the assignee will find a valuable use for it, won't
they?  ARIN doesn't have to find uses for IP space, especially if we are
running out of space, as you claim.

		--Dean