[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks


One thing that strikes me about many proposals is that they are valid
ideas, but are often dependent on everyone acting appropriately. The
problem is that this rarely matches reality. Putting aside the "why" of
prop-136, I would be interested in reading your thoughts on how the
community would deal with, or benefit from, an environment that included
this change, when things go wrong?

Everyone likes to talk about the benefits of a market and efficiencies
that may or may not be provided. While this model is possible, I'm trying
to understand how this change would benefit all involved more than the
current model. On the surface, it looks like the only ones that would
benefit from a change like this would be those who hope to profit from
brokering transfers. While we could open the door to opt out of services,
this genie cannot be put back in the bottle if it's let out.

While a resource holder could be given the opportunity to opt out of
services provided by ARIN, there is no recourse in this proposal for those
who are unable to maintain the pointers. There are also no restrictions on
how many levels this could go if blocks were transferred repeatedly. There
are also no obligations placed on resource holders should transfers go
more than one level deep. And there is no way to ensure that pointers
would remain relevant once blocks get transferred multiple times.

Law enforcement agencies, service providers, and end users already have a
difficult time trying to track down the users of a resource in WHOIS. What
recourse is there when broken chains are formed through opt out transfers?
At least in the current model, the community can point to ARIN as a forum
to direct these issues. ARIN also provides the forum for everyone on this
list to voice issues, concerns, and suggestions for improvement. If a
large percentage of IPv4 resource holders can opt out of ARIN registry
services, where can one go to have their issues addressed?

Dan Alexander

On 2/24/11 12:52 PM, "Benson Schliesser" <bensons at> wrote:

>Hi, Keith.
>On Feb 23, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote:
>> I am opposed to prop-136.
>> Prop-136 is dancing around the edges of the real question of whether
>>the ARIN community wants to give up on participant-driven policies and
>>needs-based resource allocations in favor of money-based allocations and
>>for-profit corporate policies.
>I don't think prop-136 dances around the issue: it deals with it
>directly, for legacy holders in the ARIN region, by allowing them to
>opt-out of ARIN regulation.
>> If Mr. Schliesser really thinks that some number of for-profit registry
>>services are a better way to handle IPv4 address allocations (or
>>assignments) then he should write a proposal to do that. Such a proposal
>>would allow the ARIN community to discuss the merits of such a change,
>>rather than spending time on intermediate steps and side issues.
>I agree that we need a discussion of the for-profit registry question.
>And I don't expect it to be an easy one, similar to how unfriendly at
>times the debate over domain names monetization was.
>However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to answer the question of
>regulatory authority first.  If the ARIN community rejects both prop-133
>and prop-136 then we are effectively saying that legacy holders have "no
>option" but to submit to ARIN regulation.  In either event, a discussion
>of for-profit registry services would have a different foundation and
>Moreover, while the question of regulatory authority will impact a
>discussion of for-profit registry services, address trading markets, etc,
>it is actually a larger fundamental question.  I agree that we should
>discuss the issues you raise, but please don't lose sight of the actual
>policy text and meaning.
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>Please contact info at if you experience any issues.