[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusationof fundamentalconflictofinterest/IPaddress policypitched directly to ICANN

[Mike Burns]

Hi Owen
      Well, that information leads me to discount the deaggregation argument against removing need requirements.
      I consider Geoff Huston to be en expert on BGP tables and defer to his judgement here.
      Clearly he did not see the risk of BGP table growth as a cause to retain needs requirements.
      I hope the ARIN community can take away the idea that it is not just a few IPv4 profiteers who have different visions of stewardship.
  Quite the contrary... You should listen to or read Geoff's entire argument before drawing
  such (IMHO erroneous) conclusions about his statements.


  Geoff has recognized that a market will create aggregation concerns in the BGP tables. However, his
  argument is that these are inevitable and the RIRs refusing to recognize transfers in whois will not
  reduce them.


  Obviously I don't completely agree with him that the number of transfers taking place will not or can not
  be reduced by RIR policy. Geoff's theory is that all policy can accomplish is to prevent the transfers
  from being visible in whois. My belief is that most organizations will choose to play by the rules and
  will not want space that is not visible in whois. Further that most ISPs (at least the majority of the
  very large ones) will actually consider whois registrations in the process of deciding what is or is
  not an acceptable prefix to route for a given customer.


  Obviously, Geoff and I disagree on this matter. However, we both agree that transfers are and will
  be detrimental to the BGP table.


  Owen


  What I wrote is that Geoff does not see the risk of increased BGP table growth as a cause to retain needs requirements. I think that is accurate.
  Regards,
  Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110505/b0df4c23/attachment.htm>