From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 1 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:53:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201206010453.q514r3Tp032207@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 1 00:53:02 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 87.03% | 45310 | info at arin.net 33.33% | 1 | 12.97% | 6755 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 52065 | Total From hannigan at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 21:05:39 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:05:39 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? Message-ID: Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy address? "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." Does it go far enough and cover "all" addresses prior to inception of ARIN or the RIR system at large? Best, -M< From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 1 21:18:28 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:18:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/1/12, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy > address? > > "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System > number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its > predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." > > Does it go far enough and cover "all" addresses prior to inception of > ARIN or the RIR system at large? Are there any numbers issued by APNIC or RIPE prior to ARIN's inception which are now managed by ARIN? Might there be? Maybe scrub "an Internet Registry" and just say "InterNIC or its predecessors." -Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From mysidia at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 22:25:31 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:25:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/1/12, William Herrin wrote: > On 6/1/12, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Are there any numbers issued by APNIC or RIPE prior to ARIN's > inception which are now managed by ARIN? Might there be? I would just say: Legacy number resources are existing allocations or assignments contained in blocks of IP number resources designated to be administered by an RIR, that were not originally made by the RIR, and have not been "normalized" by the RIR applying their standard resource policies, requirements, and maintenance fees, for example. > -Bill -- -JH From cgrundemann at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 23:50:46 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:50:46 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy address? No. Primarily because there is no such thing as a "legacy address." There are allocations and assignments which are commonly referred to as "legacy" because they were made before the current RIR structure was fully in place. However, the addresses themselves are simply IP addresses and are no different from any other IP addresses. In short: The term "legacy" refers to the allocation, not the address. Personally, I find the apparent attempt to create a new class of Internet number resources through such a definition misleading at best. $0.02 ~Chris > ?"A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System > ?number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its > ?predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." > > ?Does it go far enough and cover "all" addresses prior to inception of > ?ARIN or the RIR system at large? > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From hannigan at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 09:26:44 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:26:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy address? > > No. That is language that ARIN wrote in the LRSA, FWIW. [ clip ] > Personally, I find the apparent attempt to create a new class of > Internet number resources through such a definition misleading at > best. > The staff suggested it during our conversation regarding my policy proposal so I'm following it up. Best, -M< From scottleibrand at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 11:27:28 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:27:28 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <923F382E-7B8C-4D33-955F-610A101DE013@gmail.com> On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy address? > > "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System > number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its > predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." And has not been returned, reclaimed, revoked, or transferred. A legacy number resource may be covered under LRSA. Resources covered under RSA are no longer considered legacy. -Scott > > Does it go far enough and cover "all" addresses prior to inception of > ARIN or the RIR system at large? > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From hannigan at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 11:30:58 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:30:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: <923F382E-7B8C-4D33-955F-610A101DE013@gmail.com> References: <923F382E-7B8C-4D33-955F-610A101DE013@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy address? >> >> "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System >> number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its >> predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." > > And has not been returned, reclaimed, revoked, or transferred. Ok. >A legacy number resource may be covered under LRSA. Resources covered under RSA are no longer considered legacy. > I think that's a policy statement, not a definition. Best, -M< From scottleibrand at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 11:45:59 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:45:59 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: References: <923F382E-7B8C-4D33-955F-610A101DE013@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6B37F7D5-99C6-4C39-A1C7-9D554881D306@gmail.com> On Jun 2, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >> On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >>> Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy address? >>> >>> "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System >>> number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its >>> predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." >> >> And has not been returned, reclaimed, revoked, or transferred. > > Ok. > >> A legacy number resource may be covered under LRSA. Resources covered under RSA are no longer considered legacy. >> > > > I think that's a policy statement, not a definition. Yeah, I think it's a statement of current policy/practice. It may not match the policy you're proposing, of course, so may not make sense to use in that context. -Scott From hannigan at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 11:48:35 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:48:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: <6B37F7D5-99C6-4C39-A1C7-9D554881D306@gmail.com> References: <923F382E-7B8C-4D33-955F-610A101DE013@gmail.com> <6B37F7D5-99C6-4C39-A1C7-9D554881D306@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> >>>> Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy address? >>>> >>>> "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System >>>> number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its >>>> predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." >>> >>> And has not been returned, reclaimed, revoked, or transferred. >> >> Ok. >> >>> A legacy number resource may be covered under LRSA. Resources covered under RSA are no longer considered legacy. >>> >> >> >> I think that's a policy statement, not a definition. > > Yeah, I think it's a statement of current policy/practice. It may not match the policy you're proposing, of course, so may not make sense to use in that context. > Creating a definition as part of Section 2 while a policy proposal, should be rather simple especially since ARIN already publishes language that is used as a definition in their legal agreements. You'd think it would be transportable. Best, -M< From hannigan at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 08:08:20 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:08:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> Message-ID: > > 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications > > ARIN may reclaim legacy resources that fail chain of custody > certifications or are deemed fraudulently obtained at it's discretion. > > There has been some feedback that this is not a complete methodology to consider with regards to custody. Its likely that some of the transactions that would fail a chain of custody review or were fraudulently obtained should be revoked, but should be also placed on the equivalent of an abandoned property list since the resources have value and someone might actually be entitled to that value. Does anyone have an opinion on the following rewrite: 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained. Such a reclaimed resource will be placed on an abandoned resources list which shall be available to the public. ///end The logic here is that with enough information, someone will take the effort to find a rightful "owner" if one exists and notify them of the same. It is likely that there are a significant amount of resources that were overlooked in a variety of transactions, bankruptcy, estates of deceased persons, etc. I would leave it up to ARIN to determine how long something should be on a recovery list, probably aligned with some statute of limitations on claims, etc. Best, -M< From owen at delong.com Sun Jun 3 16:29:00 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:29:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2012, at 5:08 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >> 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications >> >> ARIN may reclaim legacy resources that fail chain of custody >> certifications or are deemed fraudulently obtained at it's discretion. >> >> > > There has been some feedback that this is not a complete methodology > to consider with regards to custody. Its likely that some of the > transactions that would fail a chain of custody review or were > fraudulently obtained should be revoked, but should be also placed on > the equivalent of an abandoned property list since the resources have > value and someone might actually be entitled to that value. > > Does anyone have an opinion on the following rewrite: > > 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications > > ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications > or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained. Such a reclaimed > resource will be placed on an abandoned resources list which shall be > available to the public. > > ///end > I prefer the original version. I trust staff to generally do the right thing and believe that publishing such a list would primarily be a tool for abuse more than a service to the community. As has been repeatedly documented, the resources themselves do not have value, but the registration of those resources for a particular purpose to a specific entity has value and that value may, under some circumstances, be transferable within policy. > The logic here is that with enough information, someone will take the > effort to find a rightful "owner" if one exists and notify them of the > same. It is likely that there are a significant amount of resources > that were overlooked in a variety of transactions, bankruptcy, estates > of deceased persons, etc. Far more likely someone will see it as a list of potential hijacking targets. Even more likely that many will see it as a list of potential hijacking targets. > I would leave it up to ARIN to determine how long something should be > on a recovery list, probably aligned with some statute of limitations > on claims, etc. I would support the idea of ARIN doing more to reclaim abandoned resources and make them available for reissue to the community. Not because I believe this will significantly impact IPv4 runout, but, because I believe that having better accounting of registrations will reduce the potential for abuse. Owen From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 08:43:19 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:43:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 5:08 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >>> >>> 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications >>> >>> ARIN may reclaim legacy resources that fail chain of custody >>> certifications or are deemed fraudulently obtained at it's discretion. >>> >>> >> >> There has been some feedback that this is not a complete methodology >> to consider with regards to custody. Its likely that some of the >> transactions that would fail a chain of custody review or were >> fraudulently obtained should be revoked, but should be also placed on >> the equivalent of an abandoned property list since the resources have >> value and someone might actually be entitled to that value. >> >> Does anyone have an opinion on the following rewrite: >> >> 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications >> >> ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications >> or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained. Such a reclaimed >> resource will be placed on an abandoned resources list which shall be >> available to the public. >> >> ///end >> > > I prefer the original version. I trust staff to generally do the right thing > and believe that publishing such a list would primarily be a tool for > abuse more than a service to the community. Allowing for people to recover their property would seem to outweigh this concern. [ snip ] >> The logic here is that with enough information, someone will take the >> effort to find a rightful "owner" if one exists and notify them of the >> same. It is likely that there are a significant amount of resources >> that were overlooked in a variety of transactions, bankruptcy, estates >> of deceased persons, etc. > > Far more likely someone will see it as a list of potential hijacking targets. > Even more likely that many will see it as a list of potential hijacking targets. Many of them are already hijacked or being squatted. See above. Best, -M< From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jun 4 11:12:39 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:12:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: References: <923F382E-7B8C-4D33-955F-610A101DE013@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2181FA6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Seems to me the defining characteristic of "legacy" is its contractual status. I.e., legacy allocations simply are allocated blocks that are not under an RSA or the equivalent in another RIR (doesn't matter whether they came from InterNIC, Postel, RIPE-NCC, etc..). The only tough issue here is whether you want to include resources under an LRSA as 'legacy' or not. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:31 AM > To: Scott Leibrand > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? > > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Scott Leibrand > wrote: > > > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Martin Hannigan > wrote: > > > >> Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy > address? > >> > >> "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System > >> number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its > >> predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." > > > > And has not been returned, reclaimed, revoked, or transferred. > > Ok. > > >A legacy number resource may be covered under LRSA. Resources covered > under RSA are no longer considered legacy. > > > > > I think that's a policy statement, not a definition. > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From paul at redbarn.org Mon Jun 4 12:24:08 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (paul vixie) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:24:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FCCE128.8060907@redbarn.org> On 6/4/2012 12:43 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... > Allowing for people to recover their property would seem to outweigh > this concern. > > [ snip ] "Property" is so the wrong word for what I think you mean here. > ... > Many of them are already hijacked or being squatted. ... Is there a list that you can share of hijacked or squatted resources? Paul -- "I suspect I'm not known as a font of optimism." (VJS, 2012) From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 12:51:11 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:51:11 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <4FCCE128.8060907@redbarn.org> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> <4FCCE128.8060907@redbarn.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM, paul vixie wrote: > On 6/4/2012 12:43 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> ... >> Allowing for people to recover their property would seem to outweigh >> this concern. >> >> [ snip ] > > "Property" is so the wrong word for what I think you mean here. What do you think I mean? Legacy resources today are providing for a financial gain. We are transferring assets for those that can "pass" a "chain of custody certification". If we can transfer number resources for financial gain for those people, I think that we should also be returning the assets that we find to be presented "in error" to their rightful "holders" for disposition. The flip side is that at the end of such a process, the resources will have been dealt with. [ Note, I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV. I will be interested to hear what the lawyer does say about such a concept..] Best, -M< From info at arin.net Mon Jun 4 13:36:31 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:36:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FCCF21F.1020308@arin.net> ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan Proposal Version: 1.0 Date: 4 June 2012 Proposal type: NEW Policy term: PERMANENT Policy statement: A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 and not contractually obligated otherwise to any RIR. Rationale: The NRPM does not include a definition of a legacy resource. The ARIN LRSA contains a possibly reasonable definition of a legacy resource which is wholly included in this definition with an addendum after "1997". Through a variety of publicly reported transactions and discussions amongst the community we have learned that there are two distinct types of addresses, those that are subject to their agreements which are typically for services with an RIR and those that are not. This proposal offers a definition that clarifies that distinction and for the purpose of establishing a basis for policy development supporting legal process (bankruptcy, estates, et. al.) for un obligated legacy resources. From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 4 15:33:30 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:33:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6/1/12, Martin Hannigan wrote: > "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System > number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its > predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." Spit-balling... "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System number that was issued by InterNIC or its predecessors prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System number that was issued by an ARIN predecessor and continues to be held by the original registrant." "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System number that was issued by an ARIN predecessor and remains in use by the original registrant." "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System number that was issued by an ARIN predecessor and remains in use by the registrant to whom it was issued." -Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 10:43:20 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:43:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2181FA6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <923F382E-7B8C-4D33-955F-610A101DE013@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2181FA6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree, as you probably saw with submission if prop-172. I am not sure I understand your point related to an LRSA contracted resource. Once a holder signs the LRSA, that legacy status is now historical only. Technically speaking, they are not differentiated any longer. It seems to make sense that the definition be clear in that respect so using "contracted" as the delineation would appear to make sense. Best, -M< On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Seems to me the defining characteristic of "legacy" is its contractual status. I.e., legacy allocations simply are allocated blocks that are not under an RSA or the equivalent in another RIR (doesn't matter whether they came from InterNIC, Postel, RIPE-NCC, etc..). The only tough issue here is whether you want to include resources under an LRSA as 'legacy' or not. > > Milton L. Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > Internet Governance Project > http://blog.internetgovernance.org > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:31 AM >> To: Scott Leibrand >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? >> >> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Scott Leibrand >> wrote: >> > >> > On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Martin Hannigan >> wrote: >> > >> >> Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy >> address? >> >> >> >> "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System >> >> number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its >> >> predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." >> > >> > And has not been returned, reclaimed, revoked, or transferred. >> >> Ok. >> >> >A legacy number resource may be covered under LRSA. Resources covered >> under RSA are no longer considered legacy. >> > >> >> >> I think that's a policy statement, not a definition. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mlindsey at lb3law.com Tue Jun 5 15:06:19 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:06:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> I support creating a definition in the NRPM of legacy resources so that future policy proposals can properly acknowledge and address the distinction between the bundle of rights associated with legacy numbers and the specifically defined contract rights attributable to non-legacy resources. I would , however, suggest some revisions to the definition as proposed. The revised definition is as follows: A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that (a) was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment in accordance with such RIR's number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-2564 Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com Website: www.lb3law.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 5 15:26:02 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:26:02 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > I support creating a definition in the NRPM of legacy resources so that future policy proposals can properly acknowledge and address the distinction between the bundle of rights associated with legacy numbers and the specifically defined contract rights attributable to non-legacy resources. > What distinction would that be? I remain unconvinced that any such distinction exists other than some ability to remain static and not pay fees. > I would , however, suggest some revisions to the definition as proposed. The revised definition is as follows: > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that (a) was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) functions or an Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment in accordance with such RIR?s number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. That's a very complex and difficult to parse runon sentence. As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Milton that the best definition is: "Legacy allocations/assignments are those allocations/assignments maintained in the ARIN database not covered by any form of RSA between ARIN and the recipient." Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 5 15:49:54 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:49:54 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21839FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> As much as I would _like_ to agree with Owen on something, let me make it clear that my proposed definition said nothing about being in the ARIN database. From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:26 PM To: Lindsey, Marc Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: I support creating a definition in the NRPM of legacy resources so that future policy proposals can properly acknowledge and address the distinction between the bundle of rights associated with legacy numbers and the specifically defined contract rights attributable to non-legacy resources. What distinction would that be? I remain unconvinced that any such distinction exists other than some ability to remain static and not pay fees. I would , however, suggest some revisions to the definition as proposed. The revised definition is as follows: A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that (a) was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment in accordance with such RIR's number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. That's a very complex and difficult to parse runon sentence. As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Milton that the best definition is: "Legacy allocations/assignments are those allocations/assignments maintained in the ARIN database not covered by any form of RSA between ARIN and the recipient." Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlindsey at lb3law.com Tue Jun 5 16:12:20 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:12:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> Owen - I'm not up to the task of convincing you to change your beliefs about the nature of the rights (or lack of rights) embodied in legacy numbers. I will simply point out that the proposed policy at issue (i.e., establishing a definition for legacy resources) is itself an acknowledgment that there is, in practice, a meaningful distinction between legacy and non-legacy numbers. I accept the constructive criticism regarding the structure of my proposed revision to the definition. I've restated it below in a way that, hopefully, is more readable: A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that satisfies both of the following two criteria: (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and (2) it has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment in accordance with such RIR's number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. -Marc From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:26 PM To: Lindsey, Marc Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net' Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: I support creating a definition in the NRPM of legacy resources so that future policy proposals can properly acknowledge and address the distinction between the bundle of rights associated with legacy numbers and the specifically defined contract rights attributable to non-legacy resources. What distinction would that be? I remain unconvinced that any such distinction exists other than some ability to remain static and not pay fees. I would , however, suggest some revisions to the definition as proposed. The revised definition is as follows: A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that (a) was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment in accordance with such RIR's number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. That's a very complex and difficult to parse runon sentence. As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Milton that the best definition is: "Legacy allocations/assignments are those allocations/assignments maintained in the ARIN database not covered by any form of RSA between ARIN and the recipient." Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 16:17:50 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:17:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> Message-ID: This works for me. Anyone else have a constructive suggestion before I submit a final revision? On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > Owen ? I?m not up to the task of convincing you to change your beliefs about > the nature of the rights (or lack of rights) embodied in legacy numbers.? ?I > will simply point out that the proposed policy at issue (i.e., establishing > a definition for legacy resources) is itself an acknowledgment that there > is, in practice, a meaningful distinction between legacy and non-legacy > numbers. > > > > I accept the constructive criticism regarding the structure of my proposed > revision to the definition.? I?ve restated it below in a way that, > hopefully, is more readable: > > > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > satisfies both of the following two criteria: > > > > (1)??? it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) > or individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception on > Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to > perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) functions or an > Internet Registry; and > > > > (2)??? it has not been returned to?a?Regional Internet Registry under a > binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal > successor or assign)?and the RIR?for subsequent allocation?and assignment?in > accordance?with?such RIR?s number resource policies?and membership (or > service) agreements. > > > > -Marc > > > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:26 PM > To: Lindsey, Marc > Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > > > > I support creating a definition?in the NRPM of?legacy resources so that > future policy proposals can properly acknowledge and address the distinction > between the bundle of rights associated with legacy?numbers?and?the > specifically defined contract rights attributable to?non-legacy resources. > > > > > > What distinction would that be? > > > > I remain unconvinced that any such distinction exists other than some > ability to remain static and not pay fees. > > > > I would?, however,?suggest some revisions to the definition?as?proposed. > The revised definition is as follows: > > > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that (a) > was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or > individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec > 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to > perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) functions or an > Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to?a?Regional Internet > Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy > holder (or its legal successor or assign)?and the RIR?for subsequent > allocation?and assignment?in accordance?with?such RIR?s number resource > policies?and membership (or service) agreements. > > > > That's a very complex and difficult to parse runon sentence. > > > > As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Milton that the best > definition is: "Legacy allocations/assignments are those > allocations/assignments maintained in the ARIN database not covered by any > form of RSA between ARIN and the recipient." > > > > Owen > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jun 5 16:39:24 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:39:24 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <4FCE6E7C.1060308@umn.edu> On 6/5/12 15:12 CDT, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > Owen ? I?m not up to the task of convincing you to change your beliefs > about the nature of the rights (or lack of rights) embodied in legacy > numbers. I will simply point out that the proposed policy at issue > (i.e., establishing a definition for legacy resources) is itself an > acknowledgment that there is, in practice, a meaningful distinction > between legacy and non-legacy numbers. > > I accept the constructive criticism regarding the structure of my > proposed revision to the definition. I?ve restated it below in a way > that, hopefully, is more readable: > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > satisfies both of the following two criteria: > > (1)it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) > or individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception > on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United > States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) > functions or an Internet Registry; and Yep, I understand and agree with this part. > (2)it has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a > binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its > legal successor or assign)and the RIR for subsequent allocation and > assignment in accordance with such RIR?s number resource policies and > membership (or service) agreements. I think I agree with this, but have a question. Someone who has legacy addresses by clause 1, that intends to keep the addresses for their use and HAS signed the LRSA, are these Legacy Addresses or not per clause 2? I think they are still Legacy Addresses by that clause, but it is still a little fuzzy to me by that wording. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jun 5 16:56:52 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:56:52 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCE6E7C.1060308@umn.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> <4FCE6E7C.1060308@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FCE7294.9050405@umn.edu> On 6/5/12 15:39 CDT, David Farmer wrote: > On 6/5/12 15:12 CDT, Lindsey, Marc wrote: >> Owen ? I?m not up to the task of convincing you to change your beliefs >> about the nature of the rights (or lack of rights) embodied in legacy >> numbers. I will simply point out that the proposed policy at issue >> (i.e., establishing a definition for legacy resources) is itself an >> acknowledgment that there is, in practice, a meaningful distinction >> between legacy and non-legacy numbers. >> >> I accept the constructive criticism regarding the structure of my >> proposed revision to the definition. I?ve restated it below in a way >> that, hopefully, is more readable: >> >> A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that >> satisfies both of the following two criteria: >> >> (1)it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) >> or individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception >> on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United >> States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) >> functions or an Internet Registry; and > > Yep, I understand and agree with this part. > >> (2)it has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a >> binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its >> legal successor or assign)and the RIR for subsequent allocation and >> assignment in accordance with such RIR?s number resource policies and >> membership (or service) agreements. > > I think I agree with this, but have a question. Someone who has legacy > addresses by clause 1, that intends to keep the addresses for their use > and HAS signed the LRSA, are these Legacy Addresses or not per clause 2? > I think they are still Legacy Addresses by that clause, but it is still > a little fuzzy to me by that wording. Looking at this more, there also seems to be an implication in clause 2 that legacy addresses can only be returned by written agreement. Whether or not that should be the case that seems like a policy issue, not something that should be in a definition. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 5 16:58:30 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:58:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> Message-ID: On 6/5/12, Martin Hannigan wrote: > This works for me. > > Anyone else have a constructive suggestion before I submit a final > revision? > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: >> A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that >> satisfies both of the following two criteria: >> >> >> >> (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet >> Registry) >> or individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception on >> Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to >> perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) functions or an >> Internet Registry; and Borrowing from wikipedia: "IANA was established informally as a reference to various technical functions for the ARPANET, that Jon Postel and Joyce K. Reynolds performed at UCLA and at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute." Informally. As in not under specific contractual authority. Someone needed to do it so Jon stepped up. Later on it was formalized. Unless you actually want to limit the definition of legacy addresses to those issues between the SRI NIC to the NSI InterNIC, be *less* specific here with a catchall. >> (2) it has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a >> binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its >> legal >> successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and >> assignment in >> accordance with such RIR?s number resource policies and membership (or >> service) agreements. What about stuff like the Kremen addresses? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 5 17:00:27 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 21:00:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that (a) was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) functions or an Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocationand assignment in accordance with such RIR?s number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. Marc - The existing NRPM does not qualify the nature of transactions such as you propose in (b), i.e. "a binding written agreement", and yet we have had numerous resources returned over the years through requests of various forms (including email, in-person, fax, telephone and online), so your proposed definition has potential creates significant uncertainty for past resource transactions already completed. I would therefore recommend that if section b is included, it simpler to go with a basic definition which states "and (b) for which the entity is still the registered address holder." Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 5 17:47:45 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:47:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > This works for me. > > > Anyone else have a constructive suggestion before I submit a final revision? > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: >> Owen ? I?m not up to the task of convincing you to change your beliefs about >> the nature of the rights (or lack of rights) embodied in legacy numbers. I >> will simply point out that the proposed policy at issue (i.e., establishing >> a definition for legacy resources) is itself an acknowledgment that there >> is, in practice, a meaningful distinction between legacy and non-legacy >> numbers. >> >> 1. I haven't expressed support (or opposition for that matter) to the proposal. 2. Recognizing that the resources have a murkier registration status does not inherently imbue them or their holders with any difference in rights or obligations from other resources or their holders. >> I accept the constructive criticism regarding the structure of my proposed >> revision to the definition. I?ve restated it below in a way that, >> hopefully, is more readable: >> >> >> >> A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that >> satisfies both of the following two criteria: >> >> >> >> (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) >> or individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception on >> Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to >> perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) functions or an >> Internet Registry; and >> Still murky. Does this mean that individuals cannot hold legacy resources, or are you intending to include individuals as eligible entities in which case, the use of the word entity at the beginning of the sentence is sufficient and the words "or individual" should be stricken. If your intent is to exclude individuals, then that would be a pretty radical departure from existing practice wrt legacy holders. >> (2) it has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a >> binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal >> successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment in >> accordance with such RIR?s number resource policies and membership (or >> service) agreements. So this would preserve legacy status for resources transferred and brought under RSA through section 8.2, which I think is incorrect. Additionally, some resources are returned without necessarily having what would meet the legal test of "under a binding written agreement between the original legacy holder..." This would also, potentially, create a much greater difficulty for ARIN to reclaim abandoned legacy resources which I think is contrary to the interests of the community. Owen >> >> >> >> -Marc >> >> >> >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:26 PM >> To: Lindsey, Marc >> Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net' >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM >> Section 2 - Legacy Resources >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: >> >> >> >> I support creating a definition in the NRPM of legacy resources so that >> future policy proposals can properly acknowledge and address the distinction >> between the bundle of rights associated with legacy numbers and the >> specifically defined contract rights attributable to non-legacy resources. >> >> >> >> >> >> What distinction would that be? >> >> >> >> I remain unconvinced that any such distinction exists other than some >> ability to remain static and not pay fees. >> >> >> >> I would , however, suggest some revisions to the definition as proposed. >> The revised definition is as follows: >> >> >> >> A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that (a) >> was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or >> individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec >> 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to >> perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) functions or an >> Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to a Regional Internet >> Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy >> holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent >> allocation and assignment in accordance with such RIR?s number resource >> policies and membership (or service) agreements. >> >> >> >> That's a very complex and difficult to parse runon sentence. >> >> >> >> As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Milton that the best >> definition is: "Legacy allocations/assignments are those >> allocations/assignments maintained in the ARIN database not covered by any >> form of RSA between ARIN and the recipient." >> >> >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 5 17:50:40 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:50:40 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21839FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21839FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3B7EEA01-45A5-49DC-9B01-990939C11B33@delong.com> On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > As much as I would _like_ to agree with Owen on something, let me make it clear that my proposed definition said nothing about being in the ARIN database. > On this, we agree. However, you did state that it was based on the contract status. Since ARIN doesn't have any management authority over resources not in the ARIN database, I felt a definition for ARIN policy purposes should prudently include that limitation, lest it create an overreaching policy that seeks to interfere with the conduct of other RIRs in their regions. Owen > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:26 PM > To: Lindsey, Marc > Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net' > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > > > I support creating a definition in the NRPM of legacy resources so that future policy proposals can properly acknowledge and address the distinction between the bundle of rights associated with legacy numbers and the specifically defined contract rights attributable to non-legacy resources. > > > What distinction would that be? > > I remain unconvinced that any such distinction exists other than some ability to remain static and not pay fees. > > I would , however, suggest some revisions to the definition as proposed. The revised definition is as follows: > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that (a) was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the ?original legacy holder?) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (?IANA?) functions or an Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment in accordance with such RIR?s number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. > > That's a very complex and difficult to parse runon sentence. > > As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Milton that the best definition is: "Legacy allocations/assignments are those allocations/assignments maintained in the ARIN database not covered by any form of RSA between ARIN and the recipient." > > Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Jun 5 18:02:20 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:02:20 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> I strongly feel that addresses brought under *RSA should no longer be considered "Legacy". To my way of thinking an active Legacy resource implies it is supported but not regulated by an agreement, and any version of RSA brings with it regulation by agreement. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 4:48 PM > To: Martin Hannigan > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > This works for me. > > > > > > Anyone else have a constructive suggestion before I submit a final > revision? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Lindsey, Marc > wrote: > >> Owen - I'm not up to the task of convincing you to change your beliefs > about > >> the nature of the rights (or lack of rights) embodied in legacy > numbers. I > >> will simply point out that the proposed policy at issue (i.e., > establishing > >> a definition for legacy resources) is itself an acknowledgment that > there > >> is, in practice, a meaningful distinction between legacy and non-legacy > >> numbers. > >> > >> > > 1. I haven't expressed support (or opposition for that matter) to the > proposal. > > 2. Recognizing that the resources have a murkier registration status > does > not inherently imbue them or their holders with any difference in > rights > or obligations from other resources or their holders. > > >> I accept the constructive criticism regarding the structure of my > proposed > >> revision to the definition. I've restated it below in a way that, > >> hopefully, is more readable: > >> > >> > >> > >> A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > >> satisfies both of the following two criteria: > >> > >> > >> > >> (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet > Registry) > >> or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception > on > >> Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States > to > >> perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or > an > >> Internet Registry; and > >> > > Still murky. Does this mean that individuals cannot hold legacy resources, > or are you intending to include individuals as eligible entities in which > case, > the use of the word entity at the beginning of the sentence is sufficient > and > the words "or individual" should be stricken. > > If your intent is to exclude individuals, then that would be a pretty > radical > departure from existing practice wrt legacy holders. > > >> (2) it has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a > >> binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its > legal > >> successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent allocation and > assignment in > >> accordance with such RIR's number resource policies and membership (or > >> service) agreements. > > So this would preserve legacy status for resources transferred and brought > under RSA through section 8.2, which I think is incorrect. > > Additionally, some resources are returned without necessarily having what > would meet the legal test of "under a binding written agreement between > the > original legacy holder..." > > This would also, potentially, create a much greater difficulty for ARIN to > reclaim abandoned legacy resources which I think is contrary to the > interests > of the community. > > Owen > > >> > >> > >> > >> -Marc > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] > >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 3:26 PM > >> To: Lindsey, Marc > >> Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net' > >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > >> Section 2 - Legacy Resources > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 5, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I support creating a definition in the NRPM of legacy resources so that > >> future policy proposals can properly acknowledge and address the > distinction > >> between the bundle of rights associated with legacy numbers and the > >> specifically defined contract rights attributable to non-legacy > resources. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> What distinction would that be? > >> > >> > >> > >> I remain unconvinced that any such distinction exists other than some > >> ability to remain static and not pay fees. > >> > >> > >> > >> I would , however, suggest some revisions to the definition as > proposed. > >> The revised definition is as follows: > >> > >> > >> > >> A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > (a) > >> was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or > >> individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on > Dec > >> 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to > >> perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or > an > >> Internet Registry, and (b) has not been returned to a Regional Internet > >> Registry under a binding written agreement between the original legacy > >> holder (or its legal successor or assign) and the RIR for subsequent > >> allocation and assignment in accordance with such RIR's number resource > >> policies and membership (or service) agreements. > >> > >> > >> > >> That's a very complex and difficult to parse runon sentence. > >> > >> > >> > >> As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Milton that the > best > >> definition is: "Legacy allocations/assignments are those > >> allocations/assignments maintained in the ARIN database not covered by > any > >> form of RSA between ARIN and the recipient." > >> > >> > >> > >> Owen > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PPML > >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlindsey at lb3law.com Tue Jun 5 20:00:00 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:00:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCE7294.9050405@umn.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> <4FCE6E7C.1060308@umn.edu> <4FCE7294.9050405@umn.edu> Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFD@lb3ex01> David, I understand your questions and concerns. See below with my reply comments. >> A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that >> satisfies both of the following two criteria: >> >> (1)it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet >> Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to >> ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized >> by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers >> Authority ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and > > Yep, I understand and agree with this part. > >> (2)it has not been returned to a Regional Internet Registry under a >> binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its >> legal successor or assign)and the RIR for subsequent allocation and >> assignment in accordance with such RIR's number resource policies and >> membership (or service) agreements. > > I think I agree with this, but have a question. Someone who has legacy > addresses by clause 1, that intends to keep the addresses for their > use and HAS signed the LRSA, are these Legacy Addresses or not per clause 2? > I think they are still Legacy Addresses by that clause, but it is > still a little fuzzy to me by that wording. I tried to draft criterion (2) so that attaching legacy numbers to an LRSA should not result in a loss of legacy status. But returning a legacy number to ARIN (e.g., Interop) for re-allocation would convert a legacy number block into a regular number block. > Looking at this more, there also seems to be an implication in clause 2 that legacy addresses can only be returned by written agreement. > Whether or not that should be the case that seems like a policy issue, not something that should be in a definition. I understand this point. I wrote this requirement in because the act of returning a legacy number block should, in my view, be formalized and documented. I also acknowledge John's observation that numbers have, in the past, been returned to ARIN without a binding agreement so the definition as previously written may open up those prior returns to undesirable challenges. So, I have a suggested change to (2) to address both of these points but still require an affirmative act to relinquish legacy numbers. I have some concerns about John's recommendation that, to qualify as a legacy number under criterion (2/b), the number must be currently registered in the name of the original legacy holder. I think this, too, is a policy issue. The question of whether/when an original legacy holder can transfer a legacy number and/or its registration to another party without the numbers losing their legacy status is a matter of policy and law. I also don't think the WHOIS records should be used as a part of the requirement. As some prior transfers consummated through bankruptcy proceedings have illustrated, there are circumstances where an entity that is not the original registrant may still be recognized as the rightful/lawful holder of a legacy number block. Here's my suggested re-write with adjustments to (2): A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that satisfies both of the following two criteria: (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and (2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) has not expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement with an RIR or the written consent of the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment of the IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number to another entity or individual in accordance with the RIR's number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. Marc Lindsey From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 5 20:27:11 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:27:11 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFD@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> <4FCE6E7C.1060308@umn.edu> <4FCE7294.9050405@umn.edu> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFD@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <6DF805C6-8C41-4B05-A8C8-620E7AB303C6@corp.arin.net> On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > > (2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) has not expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement with an RIR or the written consent of the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment of the IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number to another entity or individual in accordance with the RIR's number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. Marc - Please do not attempt to establish conditions retroactively regarding what should be considered acceptable mechanisms for consent for return of number resources. If you have certain beliefs regarding how legacy number blocks should be returned going forward, feel free to submit specific advice into the ARIN suggestion process on that topic. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jun 5 20:32:24 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:32:24 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> On 6/5/12 17:02 CDT, Kevin Kargel wrote: > > I strongly feel that addresses brought under *RSA should no longer be > considered "Legacy". To my way of thinking an active Legacy resource > implies it is supported but not regulated by an agreement, and any version > of RSA brings with it regulation by agreement. So, what does legacy mean (the English word)? Legacy 1. Law . a gift of property, especially personal property, as money, by will; a bequest. 2. anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor: the legacy of ancient Rome. 3. an applicant to or student at a school that was attended by his or her parent. 4. Obsolete . the office, function, or commission of a legate. adjective 5. of or pertaining to old or outdated computer hardware, software, or data that, while still functional, does not work well with up-to-date systems. #2 seem most the most appropriate to the situation, although #1, #5 are interesting side notes. This seem to most directly speak to the relationship between ARIN and the resource registration, the registration was "handed down" to ARIN from its predecessor registries (Postel's notebook :), SRI, InterNIC, Etc...) by the US Gov (through NFS with the assent of several other fed agencies and oversight bodies). When ARIN was created there wasn't any change in the relationship between the resource holder and the resource. That relationship was established when the assignment was made. Also, if the resource holder still exists and is using the resource, then I contend, the relationship between the resource and resource holder has never changed and never will change. I'll add, there was nothing special about the "hand down" to ARIN, it was just the latest in a long long line of them. And who knows, it very well may not the the last. However, please lets not go through that again anytime soon. :) Kevin, to your point; A contract clarifying the relationship between the resource holder and ARIN, neither changes the relationship between the resource holder and the resource nor ARIN and the resource registration, it only simply clarifies the relationship between ARIN and the resource holder, that is it. The registration was still "handed down" to ARIN. Now if a resource holder seeks to transfer the resource, then that would change the relationship between both the resource and the resource holder and the resource registration and ARIN. The registration is no longer "handed down" to ARIN but a new registration with ARIN, and the term legacy would seem to no longer seem to apply. So, what about those other definitions; #1 is interesting as it speaks to property but again the bequest seems to be to ARIN from it predecessor registries. I don't see any change between the relationship of resource holder and the resource. The resource holder isn't making a bequest, and if they were, of what to whom? #5 would be an interesting usage, but would seem to apply to all IPv4 addresses. :) So I would have to say a legacy address or resource: is a resource that the registration of which ARIN inherited and for which the registration has not been changed. It is probably useful to add a few additional details (like IPv4 and ASNs, the date ARIN was created, who ARIN inherited them from, etc...) but that is mostly icing on the cake, the cake is "ARIN inherited the registration, and registration hasn't been changed" There is another definition that might be useful "legacy resource holder" in this case the term legacy now seems to refer to the transitive relationship of the resource holder to the resource and the resource registration to ARIN, therefore speaking to the relationship of ARIN and the resource holder. Finally, I don't see where or how the term legacy creates any unique property of the resource itself, it only seems to be a property of the relationship between ARIN and the resource registration and possibly transitively to the relationship between the resource holder and ARIN. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From admin at directcolocation.com Tue Jun 5 21:50:02 2012 From: admin at directcolocation.com (admin at directcolocation.com) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 21:50:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: <51135.admin@directcolocation.com.1338947402.squirrel@www.directcolocation.com> I for one like seeing input like this on here as it give anyone that may have an interest in seeing a different point of view that may not be seen if submitted thru the suggestion process, as I have a ton of work to keep up with already trying to keep up with all of this and considering that fact that Marc has a background in the legal area it may give all of us insight as to other ways to get things done in a more expeditious way. This is of course considering the fact the community would like to avoid any possible legal issues that could arise from any omission of possibilities that may exist in which a Legacy holder may have performed some sort of transaction prior to all the language that is trying to be placed upon the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) after the fact. If we allow this to be done then the potential for expensive legal battles may ensue in the future in which the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) would do if placed in a situation that may harm there Legacy IPV4 future status or rights, considering that as we know it, to date IPV6 is not the end all solution to the IPV4 depletion issue at this time, and if it was, then I am sure none of these type messages would even be a topic of the community. So I personally am applauding Marc's efforts here and do think it is important to make sure the attempt to get it right as I am not an attorney and do not want to try to be one, so thank you Marc for your input and trying to help in anyway you can from the knowledge you offer the community on this input. Donald Mahoney Network Engineer Direct Colocation On 6/5/12 8:27 PM, "John Curran" wrote: On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: (2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) has not expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement with an RIR or the written consent of the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment of the IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number to another entity or individual in accordance with the RIR's number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. Marc - Please do not attempt to establish conditions retroactively regarding what should be considered acceptable mechanisms for consent for return of number resources. If you have certain beliefs regarding how legacy number blocks should be returned going forward, feel free to submit specific advice into the ARIN suggestion process on that topic. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 5 22:28:07 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 02:28:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <51135.admin@directcolocation.com.1338947402.squirrel@www.directcolocation.com> References: <51135.admin@directcolocation.com.1338947402.squirrel@www.directcolocation.com> Message-ID: <280CAC87-BBBC-4BA4-AD6D-415188C6C4CF@arin.net> On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:50 PM, wrote: > I for one like seeing input like this on here as it give anyone that may > have an interest in seeing a different point of view that may not be seen > if submitted thru the suggestion process, as I have a ton of work to keep > up with already trying to keep up with all of this and considering that > fact that Marc has a background in the legal area it may give all of us > insight as to other ways to get things done in a more expeditious way. > > This is of course considering the fact the community would like to avoid > any possible legal issues that could arise from any omission of > possibilities that may exist in which a Legacy holder may have performed > some sort of transaction prior to all the language that is trying to be > placed upon the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) > after the fact. > > If we allow this to be done then the potential for expensive legal battles > may ensue in the future in which the original legacy holder (or its legal > successor or assign) would do if placed in a situation that may harm there > Legacy IPV4 future status or rights, considering that as we know it, to > date IPV6 is not the end all solution to the IPV4 depletion issue at this > time, and if it was, then I am sure none of these type messages would even > be a topic of the community. > > So I personally am applauding Marc's efforts here and do think it is > important to make sure the attempt to get it right as I am not an attorney > and do not want to try to be one, so thank you Marc for your input and > trying to help in anyway you can from the knowledge you offer the > community on this input. Donald - I suggested Marc use the suggestion process only because he appeared to be suggesting changes to ARIN's operational procedures rather than actual number resource policy. Note that all suggestions received are visible and available for comment in the suggestion process, and there was no intent of minimizing the ability for community input on his suggestions. I do believe that the community should discuss what standard should be used in the return of blocks going forward, but that might be a different question than the present topic of defining legacy address space. This is particularly true because address blocks in the early days of the Internet via a variety of means (including by phone, fax, and email) and we cannot redefine the processes in the past (e.g. those used by Jon or SRI-NIC) via definitions in the present day. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mlindsey at lb3law.com Wed Jun 6 00:18:29 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:18:29 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <280CAC87-BBBC-4BA4-AD6D-415188C6C4CF@arin.net> References: <51135.admin@directcolocation.com.1338947402.squirrel@www.directcolocation.com> <280CAC87-BBBC-4BA4-AD6D-415188C6C4CF@arin.net> Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFE@lb3ex01> Donald - Thank you. John - I do recognize the difference between staff operational processes intended to implement policy and policy. However, I disagree that my definition as proposed (including the second criteria) is not the proper subject matter for policy discussion. It seems to me that legacy numbers should not lose their status as legacy numbers unless they are intentionally returned by the rightful holder to an RIR or another historic number authority to be re-allocated by an RIR or other number authority to another registrant under RSA (or equivalent). I suspect further tweaking of the language may be required to capture the desirable "release/return" permutations and others may disagree with my premise, but this really is a policy question. David Farmer's point, which I acknowledge as a good one, is that it may be too much policy to include in a definition. My best, though maybe not compelling, counter to his point is that there is always a little policy/substance in important definitions. I gather from your comments that you're concerned that requiring specific formalities (like a contract or written consent, which by the way, can be in electronic form) to perfect releases/returns of legacy numbers to ARIN (or another number authority) might render some prior returns/releases ineffective, and unsettle ARIN's authority to re-allocate those numbers. Given the implications, I believe releases/returns of this sort should, as a matter of policy -- not just operational process, be supported by documentation validating the release/return. Without this, there is a risk that prior returns not properly documented will be challenged by the original registrant or its successors or assigns (whether or not my proposed definition is adopted). Yet adoption of my proposed definition by itself would not render prior returns ineffectual, and would not establish specific processes ARIN staff must employ to accept returns of legacy numbers to replenish the pool. Only future substantive policy changes, changes in staff operational processes, or court orders/decisions are likely to do that. Marc Lindsey -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:28 PM To: Cc: Lindsey, Marc; Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:50 PM, wrote: > I for one like seeing input like this on here as it give anyone that > may have an interest in seeing a different point of view that may not > be seen if submitted thru the suggestion process, as I have a ton of > work to keep up with already trying to keep up with all of this and > considering that fact that Marc has a background in the legal area it > may give all of us insight as to other ways to get things done in a more expeditious way. > > This is of course considering the fact the community would like to > avoid any possible legal issues that could arise from any omission of > possibilities that may exist in which a Legacy holder may have > performed some sort of transaction prior to all the language that is > trying to be placed upon the original legacy holder (or its legal > successor or assign) after the fact. > > If we allow this to be done then the potential for expensive legal > battles may ensue in the future in which the original legacy holder > (or its legal successor or assign) would do if placed in a situation > that may harm there Legacy IPV4 future status or rights, considering > that as we know it, to date IPV6 is not the end all solution to the > IPV4 depletion issue at this time, and if it was, then I am sure none > of these type messages would even be a topic of the community. > > So I personally am applauding Marc's efforts here and do think it is > important to make sure the attempt to get it right as I am not an > attorney and do not want to try to be one, so thank you Marc for your > input and trying to help in anyway you can from the knowledge you > offer the community on this input. Donald - I suggested Marc use the suggestion process only because he appeared to be suggesting changes to ARIN's operational procedures rather than actual number resource policy. Note that all suggestions received are visible and available for comment in the suggestion process, and there was no intent of minimizing the ability for community input on his suggestions. I do believe that the community should discuss what standard should be used in the return of blocks going forward, but that might be a different question than the present topic of defining legacy address space. This is particularly true because address blocks in the early days of the Internet via a variety of means (including by phone, fax, and email) and we cannot redefine the processes in the past (e.g. those used by Jon or SRI-NIC) via definitions in the present day. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 6 00:28:44 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:28:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> Message-ID: On 6/5/12, David Farmer wrote: > A contract clarifying the relationship between the > resource holder and ARIN, neither changes the relationship between the > resource holder and the resource nor ARIN and the resource registration, > it only simply clarifies the relationship between ARIN and the resource > holder, that is it. Hi David, Have you read the LRSA? "14.TERM AND TERMINATION. (b) [...] ARIN shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement for cause upon ARIN?s written notice to Legacy Holder for: (i) Legacy Holder?s failure to pay fees pursuant to Section 5; (e) Effect of Termination. Except as described in Section 14(c) and 15(k), if this Legacy Agreement expires or is terminated, then (i) ARIN will immediately revoke the Included Number Resources" That would seem to modify the relationship between ARIN and the resource registration. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 6 01:09:36 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:09:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFE@lb3ex01> References: <51135.admin%directcolocation.com.1338947402.squirrel@www.directcolocation.com> <280CAC87-BBBC-4BA4-AD6D-415188C6C4CF@arin.net> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFE@lb3ex01> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:18 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > John - I do recognize the difference between staff operational processes intended to implement policy and policy. However, I disagree that my definition as proposed (including the second criteria) is not the proper subject matter for policy discussion. The legal format for return of address space that that ARIN considers sufficient is matter of risk management for the organization and ultimately the judgement of the Board upon hearing the recommendation of staff and guidance of legal counsel. > It seems to me that legacy numbers should not lose their status as legacy numbers unless they are intentionally returned by the rightful holder to an RIR or another historic number authority to be re-allocated by an RIR or other number authority to another registrant under RSA (or equivalent). You probably could have sufficed with simply "legacy numbers should not lose their status as legacy numbers unless they are intentionally returned." I'm not certain that such return needs to be explicitly stated as to "an RIR or another historic number authority", and in particular do not believe that "to be re-allocated by another RIR .. to another registrant under RSA" should be present, as the future of the returned number space is not germane and may not even involve re-allocation to another registrant. > I suspect further tweaking of the language may be required to capture the desirable "release/return" permutations and others may disagree with my premise, but this really is a policy question. It is certain that the registrant actually return the address space, and to argue otherwise would be a significant policy matter for the community to discuss. I do not believe anyone is arguing that point and hence would recommend keeping in the proposed definition. > I gather from your comments that you're concerned that requiring specific formalities (like a contract or written consent, which by the way, can be in electronic form) to perfect releases/returns of legacy numbers to ARIN (or another number authority) might render some prior returns/releases ineffective, and unsettle ARIN's authority to re-allocate those numbers. I am only concerned that the definition will become the measure by which returns which have already been completed in the past will be judged and that attempting to set criteria after the fact is inappropriate. i.e. If 'Bob' yelled to Jon Postel, "Actually, No, I don't want x.y, can we make it j.l instead?", that may have been a perfectly appropriate return of resources at that time it was done. By now, block x.y has likely been issued to someone else and been in use for years, despite the email that states that it was issued to 'Bob' and absence of any email to the contrary... > Given the implications, I believe releases/returns of this sort should, as a matter of policy -- not just operational process, be supported by documentation validating the release/return. Without this, there is a risk that prior returns not properly documented will be challenged by the original registrant or its successors or assigns (whether or not my proposed definition is adopted). If the community wishes to develop a standard for this, it will be utilized by ARIN for processing all returns once adopted. > Yet adoption of my proposed definition by itself would not render prior returns ineffectual, and would not establish specific processes ARIN staff must employ to accept returns of legacy numbers to replenish the pool. Only future substantive policy changes, changes in staff operational processes, or court orders/decisions are likely to do that. Excellent to hear, and if that it is case, then please make the definition simply "(2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) did not return the IPv4 address block or Autonomous System Number." Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 6 01:22:13 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:22:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FCEE905.5090207@umn.edu> On 6/5/12 23:28 , William Herrin wrote: > On 6/5/12, David Farmer wrote: >> A contract clarifying the relationship between the >> resource holder and ARIN, neither changes the relationship between the >> resource holder and the resource nor ARIN and the resource registration, >> it only simply clarifies the relationship between ARIN and the resource >> holder, that is it. > > Hi David, > > Have you read the LRSA? > > "14.TERM AND TERMINATION. > > (b) [...] ARIN shall have the right to immediately terminate this > Agreement for cause upon ARIN?s written notice to Legacy Holder for: > (i) Legacy Holder?s failure to pay fees pursuant to Section 5; > > (e) Effect of Termination. Except as described in Section 14(c) and > 15(k), if this Legacy Agreement expires or is terminated, then (i) > ARIN will immediately revoke the Included Number Resources" You don't pay your bills? Also, Read Section 5, it is immediately after after approximately 90 days of process. Previous versions were much more, up to two years. On the other side of that equation, there is the benefit of a clear modern contract defining your rights, as opposed to some theoretical rights that are unknown at best. Which terms would you prefer to have the resources critical to a $3 billion a year enterprise covered under? If you intend to use the resources the LRSA is pretty good. My personal advice on the issue is, if the only proof you can produce for the existence of your legacy assignments comes from the ARIN Whois database, you might want to contractually obligate ARIN to keep it there. I still content the contract clarifies the relationship between ARIN and the resource holder, and doesn't change the relationship between the resource holder and the resource or ARIN and the resource. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 6 01:23:07 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:23:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:32 PM, David Farmer wrote: > This seem to most directly speak to the relationship between ARIN and the resource registration, the registration was "handed down" to ARIN from its predecessor registries (Postel's notebook :), SRI, InterNIC, Etc...) by the US Gov (through NFS with the assent of several other fed agencies and oversight bodies). When ARIN was created there wasn't any change in the relationship between the resource holder and the resource. That relationship was established when the assignment was made. Also, if the resource holder still exists and is using the resource, then I contend, the relationship between the resource and resource holder has never changed and never will change. You would be asserting incorrectly, as the address block was issued to the holder subject to policies which both can effect the relationship and can change over time. Registrants had to accept policy changes from the USG (such as the change of the registry itself from one party to another and addition of fields) as well as change to registry policies as set by the community (such as RFC 2050, the bulk Whois policy, etc.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 6 02:02:10 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:02:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> Message-ID: <60906128-C830-4587-91C4-82B5DAAB7F9F@delong.com> On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:28 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On 6/5/12, David Farmer wrote: >> A contract clarifying the relationship between the >> resource holder and ARIN, neither changes the relationship between the >> resource holder and the resource nor ARIN and the resource registration, >> it only simply clarifies the relationship between ARIN and the resource >> holder, that is it. > > Hi David, > > Have you read the LRSA? > > "14.TERM AND TERMINATION. > > (b) [...] ARIN shall have the right to immediately terminate this > Agreement for cause upon ARIN?s written notice to Legacy Holder for: > (i) Legacy Holder?s failure to pay fees pursuant to Section 5; > > (e) Effect of Termination. Except as described in Section 14(c) and > 15(k), if this Legacy Agreement expires or is terminated, then (i) > ARIN will immediately revoke the Included Number Resources" > > > That would seem to modify the relationship between ARIN and the > resource registration. > Only if you assume that ARIN would not take such an action if they became aware that the resource was abandoned. Since fees don't apply to the non-LRSA registration, 14(b)(i) doesn't really apply, but, the other criteria generally still do, even if not codified in an LRSA. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 6 02:00:11 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:00:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:32 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 6/5/12 17:02 CDT, Kevin Kargel wrote: >> >> I strongly feel that addresses brought under *RSA should no longer be >> considered "Legacy". To my way of thinking an active Legacy resource >> implies it is supported but not regulated by an agreement, and any version >> of RSA brings with it regulation by agreement. > > So, what does legacy mean (the English word)? > > Legacy > 1. Law . a gift of property, especially personal property, as money, by will; a bequest. > 2. anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor: the legacy of ancient Rome. > 3. an applicant to or student at a school that was attended by his or her parent. > 4. Obsolete . the office, function, or commission of a legate. > adjective > 5. of or pertaining to old or outdated computer hardware, software, or data that, while still functional, does not work well with up-to-date systems. > > #2 seem most the most appropriate to the situation, although #1, #5 are interesting side notes. > I think when discussing legacy registrations, #5 is actually most appropriate, though #4 would also apply to some extent. > This seem to most directly speak to the relationship between ARIN and the resource registration, the registration was "handed down" to ARIN from its predecessor registries (Postel's notebook :), SRI, InterNIC, Etc...) by the US Gov (through NFS with the assent of several other fed agencies and oversight bodies). When ARIN was created there wasn't any change in the relationship between the resource holder and the resource. That relationship was established when the assignment was made. Also, if the resource holder still exists and is using the resource, then I contend, the relationship between the resource and resource holder has never changed and never will change. I can see this argument as well. I don't quite buy "and never will change." That is far too broad a prediction. There are many ways in which that can change. However, I don't really believe that the relevant question here is the relationship between the resource recipient and the resource, but, rather is about the relationship between the resource recipient and the original registry and the extent to which the obligations and agreements of that predecessor registry are binding on ARIN and the resource recipient. In the case of resources covered under any LRSA, the relevant relationship(s) to this discussion are well defined, documented and subject to contract between ARIN and the resource recipient. Therefore, those resources are not, in fact, legacy. There are two principle classes of non-legacy resources. Those covered under RSA to which all ARIN policies and future policies apply uniformly and those covered under LRSA which, in recognition of the murky nature of the questionably defined rights and obligations around their previous status are granted special exemptions from certain limited sections of ARIN policy. It has never been established that legacy resources cannot be revoked or reclaimed by ARIN or that legacy recipients use of said resources are not subject to ARIN policies. It is important in evaluating this to recognize that the resources themselves are not at issue and are not what is subject to transfer, possession, etc. What is, instead, at issue is the registrations of those resources. I have not seen anything to clearly indicate that ARIN is obliged to continue providing any services or registrations whatsoever to legacy recipients. I believe that ARIN has a moral obligation to do so, even if not a legal one. (Bear with me on the morality of a soulless corporation for the time being). However, that does not mean that I believe ARIN has an obligation to treat those resources differently from any other resource allocation or assignment. I believe that ARIN does so only because and to the extent that it is better for the community and less expensive for ARIN to do so than to pursue alternative courses of action with regard to said registrations. > I'll add, there was nothing special about the "hand down" to ARIN, it was just the latest in a long long line of them. And who knows, it very well may not the the last. However, please lets not go through that again anytime soon. :) > > Kevin, to your point; A contract clarifying the relationship between the resource holder and ARIN, neither changes the relationship between the resource holder and the resource nor ARIN and the resource registration, it only simply clarifies the relationship between ARIN and the resource holder, that is it. The registration was still "handed down" to ARIN. > > Now if a resource holder seeks to transfer the resource, then that would change the relationship between both the resource and the resource holder and the resource registration and ARIN. The registration is no longer "handed down" to ARIN but a new registration with ARIN, and the term legacy would seem to no longer seem to apply. Correct. Anything transferred no longer enjoys legacy status. > So, what about those other definitions; #1 is interesting as it speaks to property but again the bequest seems to be to ARIN from it predecessor registries. I don't see any change between the relationship of resource holder and the resource. The resource holder isn't making a bequest, and if they were, of what to whom? #5 would be an interesting usage, but would seem to apply to all IPv4 addresses. :) While obsolescence applies to all IPv4 addresses at this point (or in the near future, depending on your perspective), it does not apply to all IPv4 registrations. Many IPv4 registrations were carried out under the modern process and have clear status delineated by contract. Registrations which are continuing to function in spite of being no longer aligned with the current process for resource registration are, in fact, very much what legacy IPv4 registrations represent. > So I would have to say a legacy address or resource: is a resource that the registration of which ARIN inherited and for which the registration has not been changed. It is probably useful to add a few additional details (like IPv4 and ASNs, the date ARIN was created, who ARIN inherited them from, etc...) but that is mostly icing on the cake, the cake is "ARIN inherited the registration, and registration hasn't been changed" It is possible to update the registration without changing the legacy status of the registration. POC changes, changes of address, and other routine maintenance of the registration by registered POCs while maintaining the resource with the same organization are and should be allowed without changing the status of the registration or requiring the addition of an RSA. This is in the interest of the community in terms of keeping the registration database up to date and accurate. > There is another definition that might be useful "legacy resource holder" in this case the term legacy now seems to refer to the transitive relationship of the resource holder to the resource and the resource registration to ARIN, therefore speaking to the relationship of ARIN and the resource holder. > > Finally, I don't see where or how the term legacy creates any unique property of the resource itself, it only seems to be a property of the relationship between ARIN and the resource registration and possibly transitively to the relationship between the resource holder and ARIN. Exactly. Which means that there are no policy implications, per se, to it's status as a legacy registration which, to my thinking, seems to render the definition being placed in the NRPM moot. Owen From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 6 02:06:30 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 01:06:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FCEF366.1000005@umn.edu> On 6/6/12 00:23 , John Curran wrote: > On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:32 PM, David Farmer wrote: > >> This seem to most directly speak to the relationship between ARIN and the resource registration, the registration was "handed down" to ARIN from its predecessor registries (Postel's notebook :), SRI, InterNIC, Etc...) by the US Gov (through NFS with the assent of several other fed agencies and oversight bodies). When ARIN was created there wasn't any change in the relationship between the resource holder and the resource. That relationship was established when the assignment was made. Also, if the resource holder still exists and is using the resource, then I contend, the relationship between the resource and resource holder has never changed and never will change. > > You would be asserting incorrectly, as the address block was issued to > the holder subject to policies which both can effect the relationship > and can change over time. > > Registrants had to accept policy changes from the USG (such as the change > of the registry itself from one party to another and addition of fields) > as well as change to registry policies as set by the community (such as > RFC 2050, the bulk Whois policy, etc.) I guess I wasn't clear, I was speaking of the fundamental relationship between the resource and the resource holder, the binding between them at assignment. The assignment of resources I assume was allays conditioned on a bunch of things; one of those was to actually use it, which seems to have been forgotten by a bunch of people. Another was that the community was going to set the rules as it went along, change was a given. The whole intent of the Internet at that time was to change the rules. But, I've never seen a policy that fundamentally changed the relationship between the resource and the resource holder, it simply is not in anyone's interest to do so. And if our policies are truly neutral and community driven then I'm confident that it won't happen. I don't believe that fundamental relationship ever changed through all of the registry changes and I don't believe it did when ARIN was created. But yes part of that relationship what that there was and are conditions. > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 6 09:42:09 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:42:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> <4FCEF366.1000005@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FCF5E31.80905@umn.edu> On 6/6/12 06:58 , Bill Darte wrote: > I am still in support of Milton's more simplistic 'contractual > relationship' distinction. > bd I think I'm willing to concede that Legacy Resources not covered under a contract is the crux of the policy issue involved. I think we have been dancing around that issue for years and we need to work policy regarding that issue. However, I believe that is only one class of Legacy Resource. I don't feel comfortable defining that term solely on the basis of the contract issue. I'll have to think about it more and make sure I'm not projecting personal identity issues into the whole thing. But, Do we need a different term? Maybe. Do I just need to get over it? Maybe. If it is the latter, I think I'm not the only one who would needs to get over it. Do we need policy regarding Legacy Resources not under contract? Most defiantly. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 6 09:51:20 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:51:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCF5E31.80905@umn.edu> References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> <4FCEF366.1000005@umn.edu> <4FCF5E31.80905@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:42 AM, David Farmer wrote: > > I think I'm willing to concede that Legacy Resources not covered under a contract is the crux of the policy issue involved. I think we have been dancing around that issue for years and we need to work policy regarding that issue. ARIN policies apply to all number resources in the region. > Do we need policy regarding Legacy Resources not under contract? Most defiantly. Presently, legacy resources not under contract receive registry services and have the ability to update their contact information to facilitate registry accuracy. Creation of explicit policy by the community to reaffirm this position isn't strictly necessary, but would likely improve clarity of the situation and therefore be an improvement. A legacy resource holder who enters in the LRSA receives specific contractual rights and protections (which are the same as those enjoyed by RSA holders.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 6 10:28:21 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:28:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> <4FCEF366.1000005@umn.edu> <4FCF5E31.80905@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FCF6905.50906@umn.edu> On 6/6/12 08:51 , John Curran wrote: > On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:42 AM, David Farmer wrote: >> >> I think I'm willing to concede that Legacy Resources not covered under a contract is the crux of the policy issue involved. I think we have been dancing around that issue for years and we need to work policy regarding that issue. > > ARIN policies apply to all number resources in the region. Yes, I agree and think that has always been the case, and that was the case through each of the previous transitions of the registry. However, ARIN policy being mostly mute on the subject has caused many people over the years to be mislead or confused into believing the contrary. >> Do we need policy regarding Legacy Resources not under contract? Most defiantly. > > Presently, legacy resources not under contract receive registry > services and have the ability to update their contact information > to facilitate registry accuracy. Creation of explicit policy by > the community to reaffirm this position isn't strictly necessary, > but would likely improve clarity of the situation and therefore > be an improvement. Yes, that is the reason we need policy on the subject. The reason I focused on Legacy Resources not under contract is that, anyone who has brought Legacy Resources under an RSA or LRSA has explicitly agreed that their resources are covered by ARIN policy and should not confused about the issue. From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 6 13:19:18 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:19:18 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218420A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Marc's amendment looks good to me. > -----Original Message----- > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > > satisfies both of the following two criteria: > > > > > > > > (1)??? it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) > > or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on > > Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to > > perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an > > Internet Registry; and > > > > (2)??? it has not been returned to?a?Regional Internet Registry under a > > binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal > > successor or assign)?and the RIR?for subsequent allocation?and > assignment?in > > accordance?with?such RIR's number resource policies?and membership (or > > service) agreements. From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Jun 6 13:35:34 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:35:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3FB@MAIL1.polartel.local> I think what we are bumping in to here is that we are trying to use the same term to classify two separate resource groups, namely non-member and member "legacy" resources. I suspect what we need is a new term for one or the other. Maybe if we do something like refer to non-*RSA resources as "heirloom" or "endowment" instead of "legacy", and use "legacy" to refer to ARIN (member?) resources under LRSA things will be less confusing. Of course any resources under "RSA" are not legacy status at all but just resources. If we don't like new terms we could just use Non-RSA (nRSA) and *RSA. Isn't that what we are really discussing at the root of it all? I still feel that any "legacy" resource transferred and recognized by ARIN is no longer "legacy" and should be a common resource. "legacy" status should not be transferable. Just my thoughts. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Jun 6 15:46:25 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:46:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D3F3@MAIL1.polartel.local> <4FCEA518.8030909@umn.edu> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D407@MAIL1.polartel.local> It was kindly pointed out to me that I was mis-using the term "member" here in a manner that really was just confusing and did not apply properly. I would like to revise my earlier post.. I think what we are bumping in to here is that we are trying to use the same term to classify two separate resource groups, namely non-*RSA and RSA "legacy" resources. I suspect what we need is a new term for one or the other. Maybe if we do something like refer to non-*RSA resources as "heirloom" or "endowment" instead of "legacy", and use "legacy" to refer to ARIN (?) resources under LRSA things will be less confusing. Of course any resources under "RSA" are not legacy status at all but just resources. If we don't like new terms we could just use Non-RSA (nRSA) and *RSA. Isn't that what we are really discussing at the root of it all? I still feel that any "legacy" resource transferred and recognized by ARIN is no longer "legacy" and should be a common resource. "legacy" status should not be transferable. Just my thoughts. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 16:43:46 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:43:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218420A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBF9@lb3ex01> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDBFB@lb3ex01> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218420A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thank you. After reading the plethora of comments, I did opt to update 172 with Marc's comments and amendments. Thank you all for your feedback. I am looking forward to additional discussions. Best, -M< On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Marc's amendment looks good to me. > >> -----Original Message----- >> > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that >> > satisfies both of the following two criteria: >> > >> > >> > >> > (1)??? it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) >> > or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on >> > Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to >> > perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an >> > Internet Registry; and >> > >> > (2)??? it has not been returned to?a?Regional Internet Registry under a >> > binding written agreement between the original legacy holder (or its legal >> > successor or assign)?and the RIR?for subsequent allocation?and >> assignment?in >> > accordance?with?such RIR's number resource policies?and membership (or >> > service) agreements. From info at arin.net Wed Jun 6 16:51:16 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:51:16 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources The proposal originator revised the proposal. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan Proposal Version: 2.0 Date: 6 June 2012 Proposal type: NEW Policy term: PERMANENT Policy statement: A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that satisfies both of the following two criteria: (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and (2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) has not expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement with an RIR or the written consent of the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent allocation and assignment of the IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number to another entity or individual in accordance with the RIR's number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. Rationale: The NRPM does not include a definition of a legacy resource. The ARIN LRSA contains a possibly reasonable definition of a legacy resource which is wholly included in this definition with an addendum after "1997". Through a variety of publicly reported transactions and discussions amongst the community we have learned that there are two distinct types of addresses, those that are subject to their agreements which are typically for services with an RIR and those that are not. This proposal offers a definition that clarifies that distinction and for the purpose of establishing a basis for policy development supporting legal process (bankruptcy, estates, et. al.) for un obligated legacy resources. From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 6 17:13:04 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:13:04 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> Message-ID: <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> Opposed as written. The good parts of this proposal are effectively a no-op. Section 2 is overreaching and invalidates many past returns in a way likely to b harmful to multiple parties. This would create a new and undesirable ability to preserve legacy status of resources through a transfer. Owen On Jun 6, 2012, at 1:51 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > The proposal originator revised the proposal. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 2.0 > > Date: 6 June 2012 > > Proposal type: NEW > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > satisfies both of the following two criteria: > > (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet > Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's > inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the > United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and > > (2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) > has not expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address > or Autonomous System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement > with an RIR or the written consent of the original legacy holder (or > its legal successor or assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent > allocation and assignment of the IPv4 address or Autonomous System > Number to another entity or individual in accordance with the RIR's > number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. > > Rationale: > > The NRPM does not include a definition of a legacy resource. The ARIN > LRSA contains a possibly reasonable definition of a legacy resource > which is wholly included in this definition with an addendum after > "1997". > > Through a variety of publicly reported transactions and discussions > amongst the community we have learned that there are two distinct > types of addresses, those that are subject to their agreements which > are typically for services with an RIR and those that are not. This > proposal offers a definition that clarifies that distinction and for > the purpose of establishing a basis for policy development supporting > legal process (bankruptcy, estates, et. al.) for un obligated legacy > resources. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From info at arin.net Wed Jun 6 17:24:56 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:24:56 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FCFCAA8.70001@arin.net> ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources The proposal originator revised the proposal. Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan Proposal Version: 3 Date: 6 June May 2012 Policy statement: 8.4 Transfers of Legacy Resources to Specified Recipients 8.4.1 Legacy Number Resource and ASN Transfers Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred to organizations in any RIR's service region. 8.4.2 Minimum Transfer Size Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred in blocks of the minimum allocation unit of the recipient RIR. 8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number resources and ASN's are waived. 8.4.4 Registry Services ARIN will insure that all parties to a legacy number resource or ASN transfer agree to provide and maintain accurate WHOIS contact data in compliance with WHOIS policy. Transfers shall not be completed until all submitted WHOIS update data has been verified as accurate. 8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the legitimate holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the resource. Upon confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource, ARIN will certify that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain this certification on file for future reference. 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained and presented for transfer. Such reclaimed resources will be immediately placed on an Abandoned Resources List and in escrow. The list shall be made available to the public. 8.4.7. Legacy resources under agreement with ARIN As of the date of adoption of this policy, no legacy resource holder shall be allowed to execute an Legacy Resource Services Agreement without being able to pass a full chain of custody certification. Upon failure of certification, ARIN will place the resources on the "Abandoned Resources List" per Section 8.4.6 until custody issues have been resolved. Rationale: The ARIN region has a large pool of legacy number resources and ASN's that most agree is causing the pace of IPv6 adoption to under-perform. Providing a means through policy to exhaust these pools "should" stimulate the adoption of IPv6. The language for non legacy address and ASN transfers is unaffected in this proposal. The proposal seeks to set clear and written standards for both the legacy and non legacy number resource and ASN transfer function along a recognized boundary. Standard setting will have a desirable technically oriented result that would benefit the community by moving us closer to a) full compatibility of 16 and 32 bit ASN's b) bringing the legacy trading market entirely above board c) providing standards for them to operate by and d) providing for full transparency and accountability to the community. it is also acknowledged that providing standards as such may increase the value of IPv4 addresses in certain transactions such as bankruptcy disposition as a result of removing uncertainty around the clear requirements that allow for easy and voluntary compliance with ARIN policies. Requiring a chain of custody validation as part of the process will hopefully discourage unauthorized transferors from wasting the effort and capital of legitimate transferees and ARIN. The whois requirements are a small price to pay for the ability to transfer a legacy resource. It should also be noted that no party is prevented from signing an LRSA if they so desire. From astrodog at gmx.com Wed Jun 6 22:58:53 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:58:53 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> On 6/6/2012 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Opposed as written. > > The good parts of this proposal are effectively a no-op. > > Section 2 is overreaching and invalidates many past returns in a > way likely to b harmful to multiple parties. > > This would create a new and undesirable ability to preserve legacy > status of resources through a transfer. > > Owen > > Also opposed as written. It seems like a much simpler definition such as, "Allocated number resources which are not governed by an agreement between the resource holder and an RIR." makes more sense than trying to come up with this sort of specific definition. How, exactly, someone ended up in that state doesn't seem like it should be a factor. In the case of returned "legacy" blocks, how the entity elects to perform that transfer seems like it would be largely irrelevant. ARIN has no obligation to provide them with any services whatsoever, but does because providing those services is significantly more useful for everyone than not. If an authorized party at the entity calls John and says "Hey, we aren't using these anymore. Feel free to put them in the free pool.", nothing should prohibit ARIN from accepting the resources. At that point, those resources are transferred. If there's some condition attached to returning them, then, absolutely, a written agreement should probably be in place... but in the case of someone just "giving" them away, that process should be as easy as possible. Not to beat a dead horse, but the community consensus seems to very clearly be that number resources are not property, and service is not guaranteed for those organizations which do not have an agreement with the relevant RIR. The service is, instead, provided on a best effort basis in the interests of making life easier for everyone involved. Resources not covered by an agreement, but utilized by an organization could, if the RIRs were so inclined, be allocated elsewhere. Such a policy would certain cause huge legal and operational headaches, but does not appear to be prohibited. There is no agreement between the RIR and the legacy holder. Neither party "owes" anything to the other. The RIRs' simply record the registration information as a convenience for the community and the legacy holder. --- Harrison From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 10:28:45 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 10:28:45 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Astrodog wrote: > On 6/6/2012 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: [ clip ] > Not to beat a dead horse, but the community consensus seems to very > clearly be that number resources are not property, and service is not > guaranteed for those organizations which do not have an agreement with > the relevant RIR. The service is, instead, provided on a best effort > basis in the interests of making life easier for everyone involved. I'm pretty sure that consensus against is not representative. We have a vocal few who repeatedly bang on the drum, and an extremely large and silent minority. We know this by the volume of transfer that ARIN sees, the strong interest by the APNIC folks and their members, the bankruptcy activity and the fact that we've had at least four companies create an industry around specifically dealing with IPv4 transfer and markets. At the end of the day, consensus is extremely difficult to judge on this topic and I think that most understand this. Best, -M< From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Jun 7 10:53:47 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:53:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D40F@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM > To: Astrodog > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Astrodog wrote: > > On 6/6/2012 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > [ clip ] > > > Not to beat a dead horse, but the community consensus seems to very > > clearly be that number resources are not property, and service is not > > guaranteed for those organizations which do not have an agreement with > > the relevant RIR. The service is, instead, provided on a best effort > > basis in the interests of making life easier for everyone involved. > > > I'm pretty sure that consensus against is not representative. We have > a vocal few who repeatedly bang on the drum, and an extremely large > and silent minority. We know this by the volume of transfer that ARIN > sees, the strong interest by the APNIC folks and their members, the > bankruptcy activity and the fact that we've had at least four > companies create an industry around specifically dealing with IPv4 > transfer and markets. At the end of the day, consensus is extremely > difficult to judge on this topic and I think that most understand > this. [kjk] I do not know that four companies in the entire world is significant. I also do not think it is in the community's best interests to shape global policies to support the business model of four companies. ARIN policy is and should be developed to support network operations, not optimized for profitability of business models, especially business models that are not formed around network operation. How do we know that there is a majority if they are silent? If they do not participate it is just as if not more likely that the silent parties are silent explicitly because they are happy with the way things are going. The very definition of consensus is based on participants, and does not take bystanders in to account. You cannot have a consensus without a quorum. Kevin > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 7 11:15:00 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:15:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to ARIN consensus processes. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:29 AM > To: Astrodog > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Astrodog wrote: > > On 6/6/2012 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > [ clip ] > > > Not to beat a dead horse, but the community consensus seems to very > > clearly be that number resources are not property, and service is not > > guaranteed for those organizations which do not have an agreement with > > the relevant RIR. The service is, instead, provided on a best effort > > basis in the interests of making life easier for everyone involved. > > > I'm pretty sure that consensus against is not representative. We have > a vocal few who repeatedly bang on the drum, and an extremely large > and silent minority. We know this by the volume of transfer that ARIN > sees, the strong interest by the APNIC folks and their members, the > bankruptcy activity and the fact that we've had at least four > companies create an industry around specifically dealing with IPv4 > transfer and markets. At the end of the day, consensus is extremely > difficult to judge on this topic and I think that most understand > this. > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From lar at mwtcorp.net Thu Jun 7 11:20:06 2012 From: lar at mwtcorp.net (Larry Ash) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:20:06 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:15:00 +0000 Milton L Mueller wrote: > We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. > When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A >company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to >ARIN consensus processes. And vice-versa only custom. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan >> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:29 AM >> To: Astrodog >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM >> Section 2 - Legacy Resources >> >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Astrodog wrote: >> > On 6/6/2012 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> [ clip ] >> >> > Not to beat a dead horse, but the community consensus seems to very >> > clearly be that number resources are not property, and service is not >> > guaranteed for those organizations which do not have an agreement with >> > the relevant RIR. The service is, instead, provided on a best effort >> > basis in the interests of making life easier for everyone involved. >> >> >> I'm pretty sure that consensus against is not representative. We have >> a vocal few who repeatedly bang on the drum, and an extremely large >> and silent minority. We know this by the volume of transfer that ARIN >> sees, the strong interest by the APNIC folks and their members, the >> bankruptcy activity and the fact that we've had at least four >> companies create an industry around specifically dealing with IPv4 >> transfer and markets. At the end of the day, consensus is extremely >> difficult to judge on this topic and I think that most understand >> this. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. Larry Ash Network Administrator Mountain West Telephone 123 W 1st St. Casper, WY 82601 Office 307 233-8387 From springer at inlandnet.com Thu Jun 7 11:45:09 2012 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D40F@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D40F@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <20120607083612.J54266@mail.inlandnet.com> On Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Kevin Kargel wrote: > > How do we know that there is a majority if they are silent? If they do not > participate it is just as if not more likely that the silent parties are > silent explicitly because they are happy with the way things are going. > Bingo. If the suggestion is that we need 3000+ "me too"s or +1s, I don't feel that that would be an advance. I estimate when opposition to or support for a proposal is sufficient (IMO) to make my piping up superfluous and then keep quiet. That does not mean that I do not have an opinion or the right to one, only that it is not necessary to express it. John Springer From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 7 12:15:44 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:15:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. > When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to ARIN consensus processes. Milton - You are incorrect. ARIN has to manage and allocate the number resources in the region (including legacy addresses) based on policies developed by the community. It is an essential part of why ARIN was founded[1]. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN [1] "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region." From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 14:02:54 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:02:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20120607083612.J54266@mail.inlandnet.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D40F@MAIL1.polartel.local> <20120607083612.J54266@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM, John Springer wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Kevin Kargel wrote: > >> >> How do we know that there is a majority if they are silent? ?If they do >> not >> participate it is just as if not more likely that the silent parties are >> silent explicitly because they are happy with the way things are going. >> > > Bingo. If the suggestion is that we need 3000+ "me too"s or +1s, I don't > feel that that would be an advance. I estimate when opposition to or support > for a proposal is sufficient (IMO) to make my piping up superfluous and then > keep quiet. That does not mean that I do not have an opinion or the right to > one, only that it is not necessary to express it. > It could also be indicative of other factors that influence a conscious decision not to participate. Many of the participants here, even posting under their own names, are likely not able to comment on legal matters. It's clear that 172 touches upon legal as well as policy issues. There is a fear factor to consider. Companies that support a legitimized market also need to continue to deal with ARIN. It could be detrimental to publicly come out in support of such proposals for fear of retaliation. Whether that is a justified fear or not is irrelevant. I support Kevin in wanting visible support, but I don't think that's realistic under the current circumstances and that using some common sense with respect to "consensus" on these particularly interesting and complex issues is justified and welcomed. Best, -M< From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Jun 7 14:06:49 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:06:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D40F@MAIL1.polartel.local> <20120607083612.J54266@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D412@MAIL1.polartel.local> Lack of visible support does not prove consensus. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:03 PM > To: John Springer > Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM, John Springer > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Kevin Kargel wrote: > > > >> > >> How do we know that there is a majority if they are silent? ?If they do > >> not > >> participate it is just as if not more likely that the silent parties > are > >> silent explicitly because they are happy with the way things are going. > >> > > > > Bingo. If the suggestion is that we need 3000+ "me too"s or +1s, I don't > > feel that that would be an advance. I estimate when opposition to or > support > > for a proposal is sufficient (IMO) to make my piping up superfluous and > then > > keep quiet. That does not mean that I do not have an opinion or the > right to > > one, only that it is not necessary to express it. > > > > > It could also be indicative of other factors that influence a > conscious decision not to participate. Many of the participants here, > even posting under their own names, are likely not able to comment on > legal matters. It's clear that 172 touches upon legal as well as > policy issues. > > There is a fear factor to consider. Companies that support a > legitimized market also need to continue to deal with ARIN. It could > be detrimental to publicly come out in support of such proposals for > fear of retaliation. Whether that is a justified fear or not is > irrelevant. > > I support Kevin in wanting visible support, but I don't think that's > realistic under the current circumstances and that using some common > sense with respect to "consensus" on these particularly interesting > and complex issues is justified and welcomed. > > Best, > > -M< -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgrundemann at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 14:17:11 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:17:11 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D40F@MAIL1.polartel.local> <20120607083612.J54266@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:45 AM, John Springer wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Kevin Kargel wrote: >> >>> >>> How do we know that there is a majority if they are silent? ?If they do >>> not >>> participate it is just as if not more likely that the silent parties are >>> silent explicitly because they are happy with the way things are going. >>> >> >> Bingo. If the suggestion is that we need 3000+ "me too"s or +1s, I don't >> feel that that would be an advance. I estimate when opposition to or support >> for a proposal is sufficient (IMO) to make my piping up superfluous and then >> keep quiet. That does not mean that I do not have an opinion or the right to >> one, only that it is not necessary to express it. >> > > > It could also be indicative of other factors that ?influence a > conscious decision not to participate. ?Many of the participants here, > even posting under their own names, are likely not able to comment on > legal matters. It's clear that 172 touches upon legal as well as > policy issues. > > There is a fear factor to consider. Companies that support a > legitimized market also need to continue to deal with ARIN. It could > be detrimental to publicly come out in support of such proposals for > fear of retaliation. Whether that is a justified fear or not is > irrelevant. > > I support Kevin in wanting visible support, but I don't think that's > realistic under the current circumstances and that using some common > sense with respect to "consensus" on these particularly interesting > and complex issues is justified and welcomed. Hi Marty, How do you propose that we gauge non-visible-support? Thanks, ~Chris > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Jun 7 14:11:49 2012 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:11:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> On 07-Jun-12 10:15, Milton L Mueller wrote: > We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. > When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to ARIN consensus processes. True, but in return, the community has no legal obligation to provide slots in the community's (i.e. ARIN's) registration database if legacy registrants do not sign a contract for that service, which in turn obligates them to follow (most of) the community's rules. Establishing such obligations, in both directions, is the entire point of contracts. To date, the community has graciously provided free slots in its database as long as legacy registrants voluntarily follow the community's rules, but that could end at any time if the community gets sufficiently annoyed by freeloading legacy registrants' bogus claims of entitlement and exceptionality. The squeaky wheel doesn't get oiled; it gets replaced. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2312 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From astrodog at gmx.com Thu Jun 7 14:24:41 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:24:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> Message-ID: <4FD0F1E9.3090003@gmx.com> On 6/7/2012 9:28 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Astrodog wrote: >> On 6/6/2012 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > [ clip ] > >> Not to beat a dead horse, but the community consensus seems to very >> clearly be that number resources are not property, and service is not >> guaranteed for those organizations which do not have an agreement with >> the relevant RIR. The service is, instead, provided on a best effort >> basis in the interests of making life easier for everyone involved. > > I'm pretty sure that consensus against is not representative. We have > a vocal few who repeatedly bang on the drum, and an extremely large > and silent minority. We know this by the volume of transfer that ARIN > sees, the strong interest by the APNIC folks and their members, the > bankruptcy activity and the fact that we've had at least four > companies create an industry around specifically dealing with IPv4 > transfer and markets. At the end of the day, consensus is extremely > difficult to judge on this topic and I think that most understand > this. > > I think the more notable bit here is that, even assuming allocations from ARIN *are* property or an asset, in the case of legacy holders ARIN is not legally bound to support them, nor am I aware of anything that would legally preclude the re-issuance of those addresses. ARIN simply doesn't have any legal obligations to the legacy holder, and the legacy holder doesn't have any legal obligations to ARIN. By definition (both yours, and my suggested simple one) legacy holders do not have an agreement with ARIN. Instead, the situation we have now is one where ARIN has elected to, largely, support legacy allocations as a matter of convenience, and legacy holders update PoC information and the like with ARIN for the same reason. Having that information available is clearly in the interests of both the community and the legacy resource holder. Neither party is actually obligated to participate in that interaction, and in the case of abandoned legacy blocks, neither party does. As someone who supported the proposal to remove needs requirements on 8.3 transfers, and who actively participated in how that discussion played out last time, I think it's very clear that the ARIN community is opposed to the idea of allocations as property. If there is a... silent majority that believes otherwise, but elects not to participate in the process, then they are doing themselves and ARIN a great disservice. My only significant opposition to 172 itself, though relates to section 2's requirement that an allocation must have been relinquished by a written agreement, not just going forward, but in the past as well. From John's comments, it appears that this requirement is incompatible with the actual state of affairs, and that legacy holders have relinquished address space in a number of ways, ranging from written agreements, to phone calls. Presumably, those returned resources have been or can be re-allocated as well. Under your proposed definition, this creates a situation where the new user of this space is, technically, a legacy address holder, as the space was issued prior to Dec. 22, 1997 *and* the original legacy holder has not relinquished its registration with a written agreement. A question that arises for John is what this situation would mean for ARIN legally? Do you have any estimates as to how many allocations it would apply to, and if those allocations have been re-issued? What about present holders of this space, would this definition override their interests in the allocation? Also, presumably, this would require ARIN to go back to these organizations and attempt to obtain a written agreement. Is that even possible in all cases? (If the entity went bankrupt and returned the allocation 10 years ago... who would ARIN even go to in an attempt to obtain written consent?) Still opposed as written, though mainly due to that retroactive requirement. --- Harrison From bill at telnetcommunications.com Thu Jun 7 14:33:40 2012 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:33:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants with which no contract exists? Bill -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: June-07-12 2:12 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources On 07-Jun-12 10:15, Milton L Mueller wrote: > We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. > When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to ARIN consensus processes. True, but in return, the community has no legal obligation to provide slots in the community's (i.e. ARIN's) registration database if legacy registrants do not sign a contract for that service, which in turn obligates them to follow (most of) the community's rules. Establishing such obligations, in both directions, is the entire point of contracts. To date, the community has graciously provided free slots in its database as long as legacy registrants voluntarily follow the community's rules, but that could end at any time if the community gets sufficiently annoyed by freeloading legacy registrants' bogus claims of entitlement and exceptionality. The squeaky wheel doesn't get oiled; it gets replaced. 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 From mlindsey at lb3law.com Thu Jun 7 14:49:51 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:49:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> The policy proposal addresses many of the current "tensions" arising out of the legacy resource trading market. It recognizes, in policy, the practical reality that attempting to extend ARIN's existing policies designed for numbers under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has direct control) to legacy numbers that are not under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has no direct control) has its limits and is currently producing (possibly) unintended consequences that I believe are undesirable for the community. E.g., Increasing inaccuracies in the WHOIS databases; and limiting ARIN members' access to "off-contract" legacy numbers (while still remaining compliant with policy) due to burdens imposed on both the source and the recipient under the current 8.3 transfer policy (where the needs justification requirements impose a cap of 24 months' supply that supplants the recipient's own business judgment on how best to use its capital to manage the risks to its business presented by the depletion of the RIR free pool of unallocated IPv4 numbers). I like many aspects of the proposal, but I do have some questions for Martin and others about it. 8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number resources and ASN's are waived. [[What's your view on whether the recipient should be required to execute an RSA or LRSA as a condition for ARIN to update the database where the requirements of 8.4.4-8.4.5 are otherwise met?]] 8.4.4 Registry Services ARIN will insure that all parties to a legacy number resource or ASN transfer agree to provide and maintain accurate WHOIS contact data in compliance with WHOIS policy. Transfers shall not be completed until all submitted WHOIS update data has been verified as accurate. 8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the legitimate holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the resource. Upon confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource, ARIN will certify that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain this certification on file for future reference. [[Very good addition to the process. Who do you think should perform the chain of custody validation to satisfy this requirement? Is this an ARIN direct responsibility, something that would be performed by a qualified third-party under certain standards, or both?]] 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained and presented for transfer. Such reclaimed resources will be immediately placed on an Abandoned Resources List and in escrow. The list shall be made available to the public. [[This one concerns me. Specifically, the part about reclaiming resources that fail the chain of custody search. It may be that the requestor isn't the rightful holder, but some other entity may still have a strong claim to the numbers. In addition, many who make claims to legacy numbers are acting in good faith, but may just not be able to sufficiently demonstrate via supporting documentation an unbroken chain of custody. This could chill the willingness of some legacy holders (those with less than perfect, but still reasonable, claims to the legacy numbers) to use the ARIN process for fear that they will lose their numbers in the event that the chain of custody validation fails. Numbers in this category may either be traded outside the ARIN process or simply remain dormant and unused. Like a typical critic, I see the flaws in 8.4.6 but I don't yet have a better alternative to propose that balances the need to re-purpose abandoned numbers without extinguishing the rights entities have in their legacy numbers. A fair, independent, and transparent processes to appeal reclamation decisions and resolve competing claims to contested legacy numbers prior to declaring them abandoned might help. I'm interested in other's thoughts on this point.]] * * * Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Jun 7 14:59:33 2012 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:59:33 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <4FD0FA15.4070805@sprunk.org> On 07-Jun-12 13:33, Bill Sandiford wrote: > So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants with which no contract exists? I predict that the courts would not resolve the matter to anyone's satisfaction before the issue was mooted by the transition to IPv6--and that the lawyers (on both sides) would get rich in the meantime. And, IMHO, that's why nobody has submitted such a proposal yet. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2312 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 15:03:46 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:03:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 07-Jun-12 10:15, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. >> When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to ARIN consensus processes. > > True, but in return, the community has no legal obligation to provide > slots in the community's (i.e. ARIN's) registration database if legacy > registrants do not sign a contract for that service, which in turn > obligates them to follow (most of) the community's rules. ?Establishing > such obligations, in both directions, is the entire point of contracts. In Prop-171, there is a requirement for accurate _and verified_ WHOIS input. I would expect that "a" service contract would be developed to support the intent of 171 and 172. This is a good problem to have. Best, -M< From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 15:34:49 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:34:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > The policy proposal addresses many of the current ?tensions? arising out of > the legacy resource trading market.? It recognizes, in policy, the practical > reality that attempting to extend ARIN?s existing policies designed for > numbers under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has direct control) to legacy > numbers that are not under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has no direct > control) has its limits and is currently producing (possibly) unintended > consequences that I believe are undesirable for the community. > > > > E.g., Increasing inaccuracies in the WHOIS databases; and limiting ARIN > members? access to ?off-contract? legacy numbers (while still remaining > compliant with policy) due to burdens imposed on both the source and the > recipient under the current 8.3 transfer policy (where the needs > justification requirements impose a cap of 24 months? supply that supplants > the recipient?s own business judgment on how best to use its capital to > manage ?the risks to its business presented by the depletion of the RIR free > pool of unallocated IPv4 numbers). > > > > I like many aspects of the proposal, but I do have some questions for Martin > and others about it. > > > > 8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements > > > > ??? Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number > resources and ASN's are waived. > > > > [[What?s your view on whether the recipient should be required to execute an > RSA or LRSA as a condition for ARIN to update the database where the > requirements of 8.4.4-8.4.5 are otherwise met?]] My expectation is that ARIN would develop a lightweight services contract in order to administer this policy that focuses exclusively on providing the registration service. Period. > > 8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation > > > > No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody > demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the legitimate > holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the resource. Upon > confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource, ARIN will certify > that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain this certification on file > for future reference. > > > > [[Very good addition to the process.?? Who do you think should perform the > chain of custody validation to satisfy this requirement?? Is this an ARIN > direct responsibility, something that would be performed by a qualified > third-party under certain standards, or both?]] > I believe it is a shared function of ARIN and third parties. ARIN has oversight, the third parties do the work. > 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications > > ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications or are > deemed to have been fraudulently obtained and presented for transfer. > > Such reclaimed resources will be immediately placed on an Abandoned > Resources List and in escrow. The list shall be made available to the > public. > > > > [[This one concerns me.?? Specifically, the part about reclaiming resources > that fail the chain of custody search.? It may be that the requestor isn?t > the rightful holder, but some other entity may still have a strong claim to > the numbers.? In addition, many who make claims to legacy numbers are acting > in good faith, but may just not be able to sufficiently demonstrate via > supporting documentation an unbroken chain of custody. > I agree that this is problematic. My intention though is that ARIN does not reclaim legacy resources for re-distribution if the rightful holder of a resource can be located. I also believe that the community has a right to know about disputed resources hence while the dispute is being resolved the community is notified in case they have something to add to the process, one way or the other. I would not intend to preclude success by the addition to the list. Just public notice. > This could chill the willingness of some legacy holders (those with less > than perfect, but still reasonable, claims to the legacy numbers) to use the > ARIN process for fear that they will lose their numbers in the event that > the chain of custody validation fails. Numbers in this category may either > be traded outside the ARIN process or simply remain dormant and unused. That would be counter to what I hope to achieve with such a proposal. I think though that ARIN has an interest to make sure that "rightful holders" are granted their resources and at the same time the communities registration database is accurate. This discussion has been insightful. I believe I understand some things that didn't make sense before like why we have never engaged in a mass reclamation of resources, etc. > Like a typical critic, I see the flaws in 8.4.6 but I don?t yet have a > better alternative to propose that balances the need to re-purpose abandoned > numbers without extinguishing the rights entities have in their legacy > numbers.? ?A fair, independent, and transparent processes to appeal > reclamation decisions and resolve competing claims to contested legacy > numbers prior to declaring them abandoned might help. ?I?m interested in > other?s thoughts on this point.]] Thanks for the feedback. It is very helpful. Best, -M< From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 7 15:39:41 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:39:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <2046ACE3-B2C0-4E37-850E-1ECE1EDB5E52@delong.com> On Jun 7, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > The policy proposal addresses many of the current ?tensions? arising out of the legacy resource trading market. It recognizes, in policy, the practical reality that attempting to extend ARIN?s existing policies designed for numbers under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has direct control) to legacy numbers that are not under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has no direct control) has its limits and is currently producing (possibly) unintended consequences that I believe are undesirable for the community. > > E.g., Increasing inaccuracies in the WHOIS databases; and limiting ARIN members? access to ?off-contract? legacy numbers (while still remaining compliant with policy) due to burdens imposed on both the source and the recipient under the current 8.3 transfer policy (where the needs justification requirements impose a cap of 24 months? supply that supplants the recipient?s own business judgment on how best to use its capital to manage the risks to its business presented by the depletion of the RIR free pool of unallocated IPv4 numbers). > > I like many aspects of the proposal, but I do have some questions for Martin and others about it. > > 8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements > > Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number resources and ASN's are waived. > > [[What?s your view on whether the recipient should be required to execute an RSA or LRSA as a condition for ARIN to update the database where the requirements of 8.4.4-8.4.5 are otherwise met?]] Recipient must sign an RSA as far as I am concerned. However, I oppose this policy as written precisely because of the elimination of needs basis. > > 8.4.4 Registry Services > > ARIN will insure that all parties to a legacy number resource or ASN transfer agree to provide and maintain accurate WHOIS contact data in compliance with WHOIS policy. Transfers shall not be completed until all submitted WHOIS update data has been verified as accurate. > > 8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation > > No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the legitimate holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the resource. Upon confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource, ARIN will certify that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain this certification on file for future reference. > > [[Very good addition to the process. Who do you think should perform the chain of custody validation to satisfy this requirement? Is this an ARIN direct responsibility, something that would be performed by a qualified third-party under certain standards, or both?]] ARIN staff would have to perform the validation. > > 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications > > ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained and presented for transfer. > Such reclaimed resources will be immediately placed on an Abandoned Resources List and in escrow. The list shall be made available to the public. > > [[This one concerns me. Specifically, the part about reclaiming resources that fail the chain of custody search. It may be that the requestor isn?t the rightful holder, but some other entity may still have a strong claim to the numbers. In addition, many who make claims to legacy numbers are acting in good faith, but may just not be able to sufficiently demonstrate via supporting documentation an unbroken chain of custody. > > This could chill the willingness of some legacy holders (those with less than perfect, but still reasonable, claims to the legacy numbers) to use the ARIN process for fear that they will lose their numbers in the event that the chain of custody validation fails. Numbers in this category may either be traded outside the ARIN process or simply remain dormant and unused. > > Like a typical critic, I see the flaws in 8.4.6 but I don?t yet have a better alternative to propose that balances the need to re-purpose abandoned numbers without extinguishing the rights entities have in their legacy numbers. A fair, independent, and transparent processes to appeal reclamation decisions and resolve competing claims to contested legacy numbers prior to declaring them abandoned might help. I?m interested in other?s thoughts on this point.]] The risk to the organization of supporting such questionable claims is very high. Especially if the transfer is completed and a more legitimate claim comes along later. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 7 15:44:08 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:44:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8F2350AE-3F09-485C-A183-EA61D36F2E97@delong.com> Nor does ARIN have any obligation to maintain a registration for a company without a contract. Again, we are not talking about resources themselves, but, the registration of those resources in the ARIN database. Like it or not, absent a contract with ARIN, there is no guarantee other than community good will and current ARIN consensus based policy that prevents ARIN from deleting registrations that are not under contract and creating new registration records for those same resources that are under contract, possibly with different parties. The no obligation part of no contract cuts both ways. Owen On Jun 7, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. > When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to ARIN consensus processes. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan >> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:29 AM >> To: Astrodog >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM >> Section 2 - Legacy Resources >> >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Astrodog wrote: >>> On 6/6/2012 4:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> [ clip ] >> >>> Not to beat a dead horse, but the community consensus seems to very >>> clearly be that number resources are not property, and service is not >>> guaranteed for those organizations which do not have an agreement with >>> the relevant RIR. The service is, instead, provided on a best effort >>> basis in the interests of making life easier for everyone involved. >> >> >> I'm pretty sure that consensus against is not representative. We have >> a vocal few who repeatedly bang on the drum, and an extremely large >> and silent minority. We know this by the volume of transfer that ARIN >> sees, the strong interest by the APNIC folks and their members, the >> bankruptcy activity and the fact that we've had at least four >> companies create an industry around specifically dealing with IPv4 >> transfer and markets. At the end of the day, consensus is extremely >> difficult to judge on this topic and I think that most understand >> this. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 15:59:36 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:59:36 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Bill Sandiford wrote: > So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants with which no contract exists? Bill, See: http://www.depository.net/ Best, -M< From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 7 16:13:42 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:13:42 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Bill Sandiford > wrote: >> So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants with which no contract exists? > > > Bill, > > See: > > http://www.depository.net/ > > > Best, > > -M< And when divergence begins to appear between what depository is providing and registrations maintained by ARIN, what do you think will happen? Owen From kkargel at polartel.com Thu Jun 7 16:24:18 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:24:18 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D417@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:14 PM > To: Martin Hannigan > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Bill Sandiford > > wrote: > >> So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do > you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that > stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases > for registrants with which no contract exists? > > > > > > Bill, > > > > See: > > > > http://www.depository.net/ > > > > > > Best, > > > > -M< > > And when divergence begins to appear between what depository is providing > and registrations maintained by ARIN, what do you think will happen? [kjk] A lot of that depends on the 2 ton gorilla theory that says he gets to sleep wherever he wants. There are some pretty hefty gorillas in the legacy holder's roster. At the very least pandemonium would reign for a time. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Jun 7 16:40:29 2012 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:40:29 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <4FD111BD.5050500@sprunk.org> On 07-Jun-12 14:59, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Bill Sandiford > wrote: >> So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants with which no contract exists? > See: > > http://www.depository.net/ Neat! I've set up my own registry and allocated 0/0 to myself, in return for the USD 1/yr registration fee. Now what? 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2312 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 7 16:51:39 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 20:51:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> On Jun 7, 2012, at 2:49 PM, "Lindsey, Marc" > wrote: The policy proposal addresses many of the current ?tensions? arising out of the legacy resource trading market. It recognizes, in policy, the practical reality that attempting to extend ARIN?s existing policies designed for numbers under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has direct control) to legacy numbers that are not under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has no direct control) has its limits and is currently producing (possibly) unintended consequences that I believe are undesirable for the community. Marc - This is a mischaracterization, as the policies developed by the community have always applied to all resources in the region. They are not "being extended " to some new class of resources; we have been applying them since inception, and LRSA contractual status has been to provide assurances to the legacy holder, not ARIN. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlindsey at lb3law.com Thu Jun 7 17:08:17 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:08:17 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC32@lb3ex01> John, Yes, I understand that?s ARIN?s policy position. I believe, however, that Prof. Mueller?s recent PPML post on the issue should be given considerable weight when deciding whether/when to use sticks vs. carrots to develop policies directed at off-contract legacy number holders. On Jun 7, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. > When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to ARIN consensus processes. -Marc Lindsey From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 4:52 PM To: Lindsey, Marc Cc: ARIN-PPML at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources On Jun 7, 2012, at 2:49 PM, "Lindsey, Marc" > wrote: The policy proposal addresses many of the current ?tensions? arising out of the legacy resource trading market. It recognizes, in policy, the practical reality that attempting to extend ARIN?s existing policies designed for numbers under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has direct control) to legacy numbers that are not under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has no direct control) has its limits and is currently producing (possibly) unintended consequences that I believe are undesirable for the community. Marc - This is a mischaracterization, as the policies developed by the community have always applied to all resources in the region. They are not "being extended " to some new class of resources; we have been applying them since inception, and LRSA contractual status has been to provide assurances to the legacy holder, not ARIN. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 7 17:24:33 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:24:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC32@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC32@lb3ex01> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:08 PM, "Lindsey, Marc" > wrote: John, Yes, I understand that?s ARIN?s policy position. I believe, however, that Prof. Mueller?s recent PPML post on the issue should be given considerable weight when deciding whether/when to use sticks vs. carrots to develop policies directed at off-contract legacy number holders. Marc - ARIN has traditionally supported positive incentive policies (the limited transfer market is an example) but that does not mean having policy founded on positions which run contrary to our formative principles. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 7 17:28:24 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/6/12, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > satisfies both of the following two criteria: > > (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet > Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's > inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the > United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and > > (2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) > has not expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address > or Autonomous System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement > with an RIR or the written consent of the original legacy holder (or > its legal successor or assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent > allocation and assignment of the IPv4 address or Autonomous System > Number to another entity or individual in accordance with the RIR's > number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. Opposed as written. (1) is not an accurate description of the legacy registrations as they've been colloquially referenced. It may not, for example, recognize the registrations made by Jon Postel before DARPA first contracted the SRI NIC to manage Internet numbers. The early Internet was a relatively haphazard research project without a whole lot of "authorization" by anybody for anything. We carry that legacy with us. (2) obstructs reasonable ARIN activity, such as recovering abandoned addresses. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 7 17:42:48 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:42:48 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: On 6/7/12, Bill Sandiford wrote: > So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you > expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated > that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for > registrants with which no contract exists? Hi Bill, Assuming the Board lost its collective mind and the membership allowed it to happen... 1. Someone or several someones (possibly including me) would set up unofficial "legacy whois" servers whose only purpose is to document the legacy registrations. Some few ISPs might play along with ARIN, but most would consult one or a few of the legacy databases when determining whether to route a customer's addresses. 2. Sued by the class of legacy registrants, ARIN would NOT be compelled to provide services to folks who are not under contract, past courtesies notwithstanding. But see #4... 3. Granting declaratory relief, the same court would enjoin ARIN from reissuing legacy space to new recipients or reporting that the blocks are in use by anyone other than the original registrants. 4. ARIN's primacy over RDNS for the legacy /8's would be challenged, in some combination of court and administrative proceedings with DOC. Bet on ARIN blinking first. With contracted registrants in the same /8's; ARIN has more to lose. After #3 it won't be worth the fight. In short, it would fracture the registry ultimately leaving someone other than ARIN responsible for documenting the legacy space. At least that's what it looks like in my crystal ball. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From paul at redbarn.org Thu Jun 7 18:11:45 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (paul vixie) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:11:45 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <4FD12721.1020207@redbarn.org> On 6/7/2012 8:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jun 7, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Bill Sandiford wrote: >>> So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants with which no contract exists? >> See: >> >> http://www.depository.net/ > And when divergence begins to appear between what depository is providing and registrations maintained by ARIN, what do you think will happen? see: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2008216 paul -- "I suspect I'm not known as a font of optimism." (VJS, 2012) From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 20:10:21 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 19:10:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC32@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC32@lb3ex01> Message-ID: Hi, On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > John, > > > > Yes, I understand that?s ARIN?s policy position.? ?I believe, however, that > Prof. Mueller?s recent PPML post on the issue should be given considerable > weight when deciding whether/when to use sticks vs. carrots to develop > policies directed at off-contract legacy number holders. IANAL, but understand that you are! > > > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. > >> When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A >> company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to >> ARIN consensus processes. > So what is your "legal opinion" on the idea that the pre-ARIN registries did have agreements with folk they gave address blocks to, and that at least some "legacy folk" understood those informal agreements also applied to RIRs that came later? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From mlindsey at lb3law.com Thu Jun 7 21:06:06 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:06:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC32@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC39@lb3ex01> McTim, You wrote "So what is your "legal opinion" on the idea that the pre-ARIN registries did have agreements with folk they gave address blocks to, and that at least some "legacy folk" understood those informal agreements also applied to RIRs that came later?" To be clear, I'm not writing to offer any legal opinions on the PPML. I'm sharing my perspectives (based on experience) for general informational purposes only. I'm not providing any legal advice via the PPML. And no attorney-client relationship or privilege attaches by virtue of my exchanges on the list. Painful, but I think a necessary disclaimer! I believe enforcing the terms of an informal agreement would be very tough. There are some threshold questions to work through. - If the entity responsible for allocating the legacy numbers was acting on behalf of the USG as its contractor, is it the informal understanding between the USG contractor and the legacy holder that forms the basis of legacy holders' rights / responsibilities today? - Where are the specific terms agreed upon by the legacy holders in the informal agreements documented? - What are the specific terms and conditions of the informal agreements? - Are they otherwise enforceable under the laws of the applicable jurisdictions? Marc Lindsey From andrew.koch at gawul.net Thu Jun 7 22:02:16 2012 From: andrew.koch at gawul.net (Andrew Koch) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:02:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <9FD362844B11AF4BBFE6DBFE0B561951123C43@cmailbox3> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> <9FD362844B11AF4BBFE6DBFE0B561951123C43@cmailbox3> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > There has been some feedback that this is not a complete methodology > to consider with regards to custody. Its likely that some of the > transactions that would fail a chain of custody review or were > fraudulently obtained should be revoked, but should be also placed on > the equivalent of an abandoned property list since the resources have > value and someone might actually be entitled to that value. > > Does anyone have an opinion on the following rewrite: > > 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications > > ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications > or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained. Such a reclaimed > resource will be placed on an abandoned resources list which shall be > available to the public. My initial read of the last sentence made me think that the resources were available to the public, not the list. Would breaking this into two sentences be more clear: Such a reclaimed resource will be placed on an abandoned resources list. The abandoned resource list shall be made available to the public for review. > ///end > > > The logic here is that with enough information, someone will take the > effort to find a rightful "owner" if one exists and notify them of the > same. It is likely that there are a significant amount of resources > that were overlooked in a variety of transactions, bankruptcy, estates > of deceased persons, etc. > > I would leave it up to ARIN to determine how long something should be > on a recovery list, probably aligned with some statute of limitations > on claims, etc. Andy Koch From stephen at sprunk.org Thu Jun 7 22:42:12 2012 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:42:12 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D417@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D417@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <4FD16684.9060705@sprunk.org> On 07-Jun-12 15:24, Kevin Kargel wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of Owen DeLong >> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:14 PM >> To: Martin Hannigan >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM >> Section 2 - Legacy Resources >> >> >> On Jun 7, 2012, at 12:59 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Bill Sandiford >>> wrote: >>>> So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do >> you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants with which no contract exists? >>> >>> Bill, >>> >>> See: >>> >>> http://www.depository.net/ >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -M< >> And when divergence begins to appear between what depository is providing and registrations maintained by ARIN, what do you think will happen? > [kjk] A lot of that depends on the 2 ton gorilla theory that says he gets to sleep wherever he wants. There are some pretty hefty gorillas in the legacy holder's roster. At the very least pandemonium would reign for a time. There will be no pandemonium. The RIRs' databases have value because there is consensus among ISPs that that's who they'll refer to when deciding whether to accept a customer. If/when alternative registries appear and begin to diverge, why would the ISPs have reason to consult any database other than the RIRs'? Even if ISPs _did_ consider looking at a different database for some reason, what are the odds they'd all choose the _same_ alternative database among the dozens (or more) that appear? If they don't, every registrant would have to pay fees to every alternative registry in order to prevent divergence and therefore ensure that every ISP would accept them as the legitimate registrant for the resources they claim. That, in the end, would cost far more time and money than simply joining the RIR system in the first place. Alternative registries are doomed to fail. It's a bogeyman used by those who try to scare the community into adopting bad policies--and to bilk stupid venture capitalists. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2312 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 8 00:53:03 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201206080453.q584r3mi001321@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 87 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 8 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 17.24% | 15 | 12.89% | 103453 | hannigan at gmail.com 11.49% | 10 | 14.95% | 119988 | owen at delong.com 8.05% | 7 | 12.67% | 101647 | mlindsey at lb3law.com 10.34% | 9 | 9.76% | 78331 | jcurran at arin.net 6.90% | 6 | 11.00% | 88248 | kkargel at polartel.com 8.05% | 7 | 7.17% | 57536 | farmer at umn.edu 6.90% | 6 | 5.06% | 40588 | bill at herrin.us 4.60% | 4 | 5.88% | 47208 | stephen at sprunk.org 4.60% | 4 | 4.57% | 36705 | mueller at syr.edu 3.45% | 3 | 2.67% | 21391 | info at arin.net 2.30% | 2 | 1.97% | 15770 | astrodog at gmx.com 2.30% | 2 | 1.80% | 14442 | cgrundemann at gmail.com 2.30% | 2 | 1.60% | 12812 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 2.30% | 2 | 1.37% | 11004 | paul at redbarn.org 1.15% | 1 | 1.01% | 8069 | admin at directcolocation.com 1.15% | 1 | 0.94% | 7521 | lar at mwtcorp.net 1.15% | 1 | 0.88% | 7030 | andrew.koch at gawul.net 1.15% | 1 | 0.84% | 6709 | bill at telnetcommunications.com 1.15% | 1 | 0.81% | 6499 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.15% | 1 | 0.77% | 6208 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.15% | 1 | 0.72% | 5755 | mysidia at gmail.com 1.15% | 1 | 0.70% | 5613 | springer at inlandnet.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 87 |100.00% | 802527 | Total From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 8 16:10:32 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:10:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21859FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> This issue will be settled in the courts, if you choose to contest it. Where, once again, community consensus will not be a factor. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > On Jun 7, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > We don't need to debate whether consensus exists or not. > > When it comes to legacy resources, community consensus is irrelevant. A > company without a contract has no legal or any other kind of obligation to > ARIN consensus processes. > > Milton - > > You are incorrect. ARIN has to manage and allocate the number resources > in the region (including legacy addresses) based on policies developed > by the community. It is an essential part of why ARIN was founded[1]. > From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 8 16:27:33 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:27:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you expect > the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that > ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants > with which no contract exists? > > Bill You are asking what will happen if ARIN chooses to play chicken by trying to use its control of the authoritative registry to impose its policies on legacy holders. Good question. It depends on what the legacy holders do. One possible, and likely, outcome is that they will turn to an alternative registry(ies) that ISPs come to see as a peer of ARIN because of the number of address resources registered within them. In that case ARIN would quickly cave and begin listing those "maverick" resources as well, in order to maintain a universal Whois and prevent a stronger migration to the other registry, which would no doubt list everyone. Contrary to Vixie, I do not see any major technical problem in coordinating separately maintained Whois's. It is the same registrar- registry separation model that is now used in the DNS. Another possible outcome is that the legacy holders will be intimidated and start signing LRSAs in order to retain their listing. Right now, we avoid the game of chicken by sitting in a halfway house between these two extremes. Politically, it reminds me of US policy toward Taiwan and China. We recognize the PRC and don't recognize the independence of Taiwan, but Taiwan is an ally and if China tries to take it over by force, the US might intervene militarily. But we are not promising Taiwan will will intervene and we are not telling China whether we will intervene or not. Whoever makes the first move triggers the game of chicken. From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 8 16:42:35 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/7/12, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 7, 2012, at 2:49 PM, "Lindsey, Marc" > > wrote: >> legacy >> numbers that are not under contract with ARIN (where ARIN has no direct >> control) > > This is a mischaracterization, as the policies developed by the community > have always applied to all resources in the region. They are not "being > extended " to some new class of resources; we have been applying them since > inception, and LRSA contractual status has been to provide assurances to the > legacy holder, not ARIN. John, Fallacy of Omission. Appeal to a Lack of Evidence. The community has never directed ARIN to adopt policies that compel any proactive behavior by legacy registrants whatsoever. Ergo those (lack of) policies have always applied to the legacy registrants. Ergo any new policies will too, regardless of the behavior they purport to require. As Milton said, the issue will be settled in the courts, should ARIN ever contest it. To date the only related matter that's reasonably well settled is that ARIN may refuse to change a legacy registration. Even there ARIN has elected not to press matters, allowing Microsoft to sign the LRSA for example when the prima facie intent of the transfer policy was that recipients adhere to the same contract as registrants receiving fresh addresses. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 8 16:55:33 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:55:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net>, Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:42 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: > On 6/7/12, John Curran > > As Milton said, the issue will be settled in the courts, should ARIN > ever contest it. To date the only related matter that's reasonably > well settled is that ARIN may refuse to change a legacy registration. > Even there ARIN has elected not to press matters, Bill - You've got it reversed; as ARIN has frequently intervened to make sure that resources are only updated in accordance with community policy, including in half a dozen bankruptcy matters. Please see my recent NANOG 55 presentation "Update on IPv4 Transfers" for details. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 8 17:19:22 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 21:19:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > You are asking what will happen if ARIN chooses to play chicken by trying to use its control of the authoritative registry to impose its policies on legacy holders. Milton - Your phrasing is intentionally inflammatory, and this is not your blog page but the Public Policy Mailing List. ARIN maintains all of the resources in the region per the policy set by the community. We were founded for exactly that purpose. To date, there has not been any consensus on more relaxed policies for legacy address holders, although reduced fees have been provided. We do have a specified transfer policy that many legacy holders are now using, and I expect do this to increase going forward for those legacy holders who want to work with the community. Legacy address holders do want the community to recognize that they have legitimate rights (even if only so they may transfer their resources for $$$), but then some quickly deny that working with that same community is necessary. It's certainly an interesting approach, and likely to be as succesful as attempts to get ARIN to change the registry contrary to community policy. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 8 18:15:51 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:15:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C65C405-7C27-41A7-B1A1-28FF9E617B02@delong.com> > One possible, and likely, outcome is that they will turn to an alternative registry(ies) that ISPs come to see as a peer of ARIN because of the number of address resources registered within them. In that case ARIN would quickly cave and begin listing those "maverick" resources as well, in order to maintain a universal Whois and prevent a stronger migration to the other registry, which would no doubt list everyone. Contrary to Vixie, I do not see any major technical problem in coordinating separately maintained Whois's. It is the same registrar- registry separation model that is now used in the DNS. > This works in DNS only because all semblance of rational policy was removed from DNS long ago. Most of it was removed by Verisign seeking to maximize profits. The remaining vestiges were removed by WIPO interests and the conversion to a registry/registrar system which added a profit motive to engage in a race to the bottom. > Another possible outcome is that the legacy holders will be intimidated and start signing LRSAs in order to retain their listing. > > Right now, we avoid the game of chicken by sitting in a halfway house between these two extremes. > > Politically, it reminds me of US policy toward Taiwan and China. We recognize the PRC and don't recognize the independence of Taiwan, but Taiwan is an ally and if China tries to take it over by force, the US might intervene militarily. But we are not promising Taiwan will will intervene and we are not telling China whether we will intervene or not. Whoever makes the first move triggers the game of chicken. You left out the amount of annual arms sales we make to Taiwan and several other factors in that particular game of chicken. Similarly, I don't think ARIN is likely to engage in this particular game of chicken unless absolutely necessary. It's really a short-term problem anyway. IPv4 is on the way out and the perceived monetary value of IPv4 resources is rather transient. Hopefully after a few years of this silliness, we can return to managing resources based on rational number resource policy and take the monetary engineering aspects back out of it. Owen > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 8 18:28:37 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:28:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/8/12, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 8, 2012, at 4:42 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: >> To date the only related matter that's reasonably >> well settled is that ARIN may refuse to change a legacy registration. > > You've got it reversed; as ARIN has frequently intervened > to make sure that resources are only updated in accordance > with community policy, including in half a dozen bankruptcy > matters. John, That's a difference in spin, not substance. "Will update these particular ways (no other)" is identical in every respect to "won't update (except these particular ways)." Wake me up if you ever actually tell a bankruptcy court that they must not treat a legacy address block as a salable asset. I'll bring the popcorn to the show. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 8 19:11:24 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:11:24 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/8/12, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:28 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> Wake me up if you ever actually tell a bankruptcy court that they must >> not treat a legacy address block as a salable asset. I'll bring the >> popcorn to the show. > > You're late to the show then, as we have prevailed > in numerous courts asserting that that "they must > not treat a legacy address block as asalable asset, > _except_ for transfers which meet policy." John, Nice spin. Remind me: In which case did the court ultimately decline to treat properly registered legacy addresses as an asset salable to the court-preferred buyer? ARIN's 100% approval rate of bankruptcy-sale recipients has been most efficient. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 8 19:38:49 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:38:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> , Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:11 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: > ARIN's 100% approval rate of bankruptcy-sale recipients has been most efficient Bill - Several proposed transactions have had to go back to the beginning and find a more appropriate recipient (in order to meet community policy.) You apparently are waiting for a court order for ARIN to update the registry contrary to community policy (good luck with that...) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 8 20:23:48 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:23:48 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/8/12, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:11 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: >> ARIN's 100% approval rate of bankruptcy-sale recipients has been most >> efficient > > Several proposed transactions have had to go > back to the beginning and find a more appropriate > recipient (in order to meet community policy.) > > You apparently are waiting for a court order for ARIN > to update the registry contrary to community policy > (good luck with that...) No, there was already such a court order in the Kremen case. ARIN declined to comply, Kremen sued and ultimately lost on the statute of limitations without ever reaching whether the original order legitimately compelled ARIN to update the registration. Old news. What I would hear of, if you'd be so kind, is a specific bankruptcy case in which ARIN reported to the judge that the the guy offering the most money for the addresses was not qualified to receive them. You implied there was precedent on this. I'd like to pull up the order and read it. I also note that you appear to agree that to date ARIN has always qualified an acceptable recipient, never asking the judge to find the addresses forfeit for lack of a qualified buyer. Yes? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 8 20:39:25 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:39:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> , Message-ID: <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> On Jun 8, 2012, at 8:23 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: > What I would hear of, if you'd be so kind, is a specific bankruptcy > case in which ARIN reported to the judge that the the guy offering the > most money for the addresses was not qualified to receive them. You > implied there was precedent on this. I'd like to pull up the order and > read it. Bill - Parties have promptly found other qualified recipients in these cases rather than continuing to pursue unsuccessfully. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 8 20:49:37 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:49:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/8/12, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 8, 2012, at 8:23 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: >> What I would hear of, if you'd be so kind, is a specific bankruptcy >> case in which ARIN reported to the judge that the the guy offering the >> most money for the addresses was not qualified to receive them. You >> implied there was precedent on this. I'd like to pull up the order and >> read it. > > Parties have promptly found other qualified recipients in these cases > rather than continuing to pursue unsuccessfully. So... can you cite a specific case in which the addresses were sold for less money to "other qualified recipients" because ARIN nixed the one with the higher offer? -Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 8 21:20:00 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:20:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:49 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On 6/8/12, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 8, 2012, at 8:23 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: >>> What I would hear of, if you'd be so kind, is a specific bankruptcy >>> case in which ARIN reported to the judge that the the guy offering the >>> most money for the addresses was not qualified to receive them. You >>> implied there was precedent on this. I'd like to pull up the order and >>> read it. >> >> Parties have promptly found other qualified recipients in these cases >> rather than continuing to pursue unsuccessfully. > > So... can you cite a specific case in which the addresses were sold > for less money to "other qualified recipients" because ARIN nixed the > one with the higher offer? > What does it matter? If they found alternate buyers at the same or higher price in order to qualify under ARIN policy, I think that's what matters. Owen > -Bill > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 8 23:10:50 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 23:10:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/8/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:49 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> So... can you cite a specific case in which the addresses were sold >> for less money to "other qualified recipients" because ARIN nixed the >> one with the higher offer? >> > What does it matter? If they found alternate buyers at the same or higher > price in order to qualify under ARIN policy, I think that's what matters. Hi Owen, What does it matter? Good question. The answer is this: the courts have repeatedly treated legacy IP addresses as a salable asset. Not property. Salable assets. Belonging to the registrant. Not property. Assets. Like any other intangible that belongs to the registrant. His. That's now well established legal precedent. With repeated opportunity, ARIN has not once challenged it. They've limited their claim to 1) not property, and 2) right to approve transfer recipients. And they've not really tried to sail against the wind on those limited claims. ARIN isn't going to take away legacy addresses for declining to sign a contract. Even it we passed a policy saying to. Not gonna happen. Wouldn't be legal. Not against the weight of precedent. So let's all stop pretending it conceivably could happen. Our choices are threefold: 1. Status quo. Let IPv6 put an end to the issue. 2. Reach out to the legacy registrants with fair or better value for what they lose by normalizing relations via the LRSA. 3. Change the LRSA to a database-services only contract. ARIN gains no interest in the numbers and gives up no rights it otherwise has. Registrant pays to have their existing data in whois and rdns and is guaranteed of it so long as they keep paying and don't change. And that's about it. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From paul at redbarn.org Sat Jun 9 00:04:09 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 04:04:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> On 2012-06-08 8:27 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > One possible, and likely, outcome is that they will turn to an > alternative registry(ies) that ISPs come to see as a peer of ARIN > because of the number of address resources registered within them. "likely"? why exactly is that likely? i can't think of any isp's like that. as a network operator myself, i have always treated "me too!" registries of any kind whether for domain names or ip addresses or any other identifier that "the public" has to certify in some way as "obviously flakey". see, again, . > In that case ARIN would ... in the case where pigs had wings, then pigs could fly. we already know that part. it's the wings part that has me puzzled. paul From paul at redbarn.org Sat Jun 9 00:06:09 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 04:06:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21859FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21859FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD2CBB1.3060602@redbarn.org> On 2012-06-08 8:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > This issue will be settled in the courts, if you choose to contest it. Where, once again, community consensus will not be a factor. i think we already know what arin would contest. (see arin bylaws, charter, and nrpm.) assuming that something contestable along those lines does occur, and it goes to "the courts" to "be settled", what do you think the salient issues will be in those procedings? paul From astrodog at gmx.com Sat Jun 9 01:02:01 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:02:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FD2D8C9.6000203@gmx.com> On 6/8/2012 10:10 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On 6/8/12, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:49 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> So... can you cite a specific case in which the addresses were sold >>> for less money to "other qualified recipients" because ARIN nixed the >>> one with the higher offer? >>> >> What does it matter? If they found alternate buyers at the same or higher >> price in order to qualify under ARIN policy, I think that's what matters. > Hi Owen, > > What does it matter? Good question. The answer is this: the courts > have repeatedly treated legacy IP addresses as a salable asset. Not > property. Salable assets. Belonging to the registrant. Not property. > Assets. Like any other intangible that belongs to the registrant. His. > That's now well established legal precedent. > I think the question here is actually what happens if ARIN refuses due to an unqualified recipient. It would be very difficult for a buyer or a bankruptcy judge to show ARIN is obligated to update its' database in these circumstances... ARIN does not have an agreement with either party in these sorts of circumstances. The legacy holder or a judge can certainly assert that the resources may be delegated/sold/etc... but that does not necessarily extend to ARIN updating its records to reflect the transfer. AFAIK, there is no precedent for ARIN being compelled to update its own registry, due to legal action involving two entirely unrelated third parties who have no expectation of services from ARIN. The risks for all parties involved in determining the legal standing here is significant. The bankruptcy court risks rendering what was a sale-able asset completely worthless, the potential buyer risks ending up owning something of little to no value (The resource, without ARIN updating its' records), and ARIN risks losing any type of control over the legacy space. I don't see why anyone involved would want to go "to the mat", so to speak. It's much easier for the court to find another buyer. Even if a court were to attempt to order ARIN to update its records, the almost complete certainty of a lengthy appeals process would significantly devalue the resources to a buyer attempting to deploy a network. In my experience outside of the ARIN / IP Addressing world, as it relates to title... bankruptcy judges, and a company's creditors, want a fast conclusion. If an asset needs to be devalued due to uncertain title, it is, and the legal issues are left to the buyer to resolve. A company's creditors rarely want to drag out liquidation any longer than they have to. They certainly don't want to wait on a multi-year legal process with a substantial risk of rendering the asset entirely worthless. --- Harrison From jrhett at netconsonance.com Sat Jun 9 01:41:46 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 22:41:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2012, at 8:10 PM, William Herrin wrote: > ARIN isn't going to take away legacy addresses for declining to sign a > contract. Even it we passed a policy saying to. Not gonna happen. > Wouldn't be legal. Not against the weight of precedent. So let's all > stop pretending it conceivably could happen. I completely disagree with your entire assertion. You not only aren't interpreting the facts accurately, but you are blindly ignoring the facts. It hasn't gone there, and there are numerous reasons it won't go there. Not everyone is a psychopath with no interest in anyone but themselves, Bill. People understand that if they chose not to play ball, ARIN has recourses available to them. Most people understand the value of not fighting a fight they can't win, and where the other party has readily available 'nuclear' options and they do not. Now please take this little charade off to a blog somewhere and rant away, and let this list focus on policy. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. From jrhett at netconsonance.com Sat Jun 9 01:36:25 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 22:36:25 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:49 PM, William Herrin wrote: > So... can you cite a specific case in which the addresses were sold > for less money to "other qualified recipients" because ARIN nixed the > one with the higher offer? Bill, I see no point to this line of questioning as it regards policy, and I'd like you to take it to -discuss please. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. From astrodog at gmx.com Sat Jun 9 02:07:54 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 01:07:54 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD2E83A.0@gmx.com> There seems to be a big question here that isn't being acknowledged. Namely, how strong would a title claim by a legacy holder be in the first place. A huge risk faced by legacy address holders is the massive lack of documentation in many cases. A legal fight over what ARIN has to do also creates a genuine risk of losing the asset entirely if ARIN elects to argue that the alleged legacy holder has no standing whatsoever regarding the resources. Title issues are rarely as clear cut as people would like. In my industry, often times multiple entities will claim to have title to the same assets, or there will be little to no documentation as to the title status either way. In these cases, often times none of the involved parties wish to resolve the issue through the courts. It tends to be cheaper for the buyer to simply pay everyone (or walk away from the deal entirely) and all of the sellers are aware of the substantial risk involved in having a county judge make a decision with little to no evidence either way to work from. The process is risky enough for entities which believe they have very strong evidence. I do not see a substantial legacy holder risking its assets in this way, nor do I see a bankruptcy court along with a company's creditors deciding that they are best served by getting into a legal dispute wherein the underlying asset may be stripped entirely. These entities tend to be very, very conservative. Very few creditors, and even fewer bankruptcy courts would be inclined to take this route, particularly given the possibility of selling the assets quickly to a qualified buyer who will not require the court and the creditors to face these issues for the same or near the same price. I would be interested to hear people's experiences with the level of documentation held by legacy holders, in particular, how strong their claim to resources generally are beyond "We've been using it for a long time" and "ARIN says so." --- Harrison From mike at nationwideinc.com Sat Jun 9 11:07:17 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:07:17 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN andlegacy resources References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> Message-ID: <620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video> > I completely disagree with your entire assertion. You not only aren't > interpreting the facts accurately, but you are blindly ignoring the facts. > It hasn't gone there, and there are numerous reasons it won't go there. > Not everyone is a psychopath with no interest in anyone but themselves, > Bill. People understand that if they chose not to play ball, ARIN has > recourses available to them. Most people understand the value of not > fighting a fight they can't win, and where the other party has readily > available 'nuclear' options and they do not. > > Now please take this little charade off to a blog somewhere and rant away, > and let this list focus on policy. > > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet > projects. -1 This is a vital discussion, long punted, and this response is borderline ad hominem. When will we hear from ARIN counsel instead of John Curran on this issue? Regards, Mike From jcurran at arin.net Sat Jun 9 12:24:49 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:24:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN andlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <"CAP-guGU+8 mw91NDvcX+EHU3esJE1jP1J7ioFBgXwCdH2Wb2p0A"@mail.gmail.com> <"CAP-guGVMg3Z=obO6EWP_t 9nSGhCvMR304bG-qBhNMc9mO5Oayw"@mail.gmail.com> <"CAP-guGUssKbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeOW xMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com> <"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNjF-9 tFg"@mail.gmail.com> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video> Message-ID: <30F518BB-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net> On Jun 9, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > This is a vital discussion, long punted, and this response is borderline ad hominem. > > When will we hear from ARIN counsel instead of John Curran on this issue? Mike - Please explain - what information is being sought from ARIN's Counsel? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 9 15:30:15 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:30:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > > why exactly is that likely? > > i can't think of any isp's like that. as a network operator myself, i > have always treated "me too!" registries of any kind whether for domain > names or ip addresses or any other identifier that "the public" has to > certify in some way as "obviously flakey". > > see, again, . [Milton L Mueller] Paul, I already dealt with your arguments here, quite handily. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/08/15/arin-and-vixie-get-nervous-about-competition/ perhaps you should "see, again..." From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 9 15:31:31 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:31:31 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Not everyone is a psychopath with no interest in anyone but > themselves, Bill. [Milton L Mueller] Whoa. Foul. From stephen at sprunk.org Sat Jun 9 16:12:42 2012 From: stephen at sprunk.org (Stephen Sprunk) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:12:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> Message-ID: <4FD3AE3A.4020305@sprunk.org> On 07-Jun-12 16:42, William Herrin wrote: > On 6/7/12, Bill Sandiford wrote: >> So just out of curiosity, and certainly not proposing this, would do you expect the outcome would be if the community passed a policy that stated that ARIN would no longer maintain registrations in its databases for registrants with which no contract exists? > Assuming the Board lost its collective mind and the membership allowed > it to happen... > > 1. Someone or several someones (possibly including me) would set up > unofficial "legacy whois" servers whose only purpose is to document > the legacy registrations. Who would pay for this service? And how would its operators decide policy, who gets to be included, resolve disputes, etc.? Note that most legacy holders have already proven unwilling to pay for the community to do any of these things or agree (in writing) to abide by the community's rules. What makes you think they would be willing to do so in the case of a third-party registrar that didn't even have ARIN's veneer of authority as successor registrar? > Some few ISPs might play along with ARIN, but most would consult one or a few of the legacy databases when determining whether to route a customer's addresses. Are you sure about that? And what do you think ISPs would do when those alternative registrars disagree on who the proper registrant is? > 2. Sued by the class of legacy registrants, ARIN would NOT be > compelled to provide services to folks who are not under contract, > past courtesies notwithstanding. But see #4... I agree. > 3. Granting declaratory relief, the same court would enjoin ARIN from > reissuing legacy space to new recipients or reporting that the blocks > are in use by anyone other than the original registrants. That's a reasonable temporary measure a court could take while the suits were pending. However, in the meantime, these registrations would /not/ be visible in ARIN's database, which has effects on how ISPs would treat them, and they'd become even more of a magnet for spammers et al than they already are. > 4. ARIN's primacy over RDNS for the legacy /8's would be challenged, > in some combination of court and administrative proceedings with DOC. > Bet on ARIN blinking first. With contracted registrants in the same > /8's; ARIN has more to lose. After #3 it won't be worth the fight. I don't see DOC/IANA/ICANN pulling ARIN's RDNS delegations if there are still contracted registrants to be served. > In short, it would fracture the registry ultimately leaving someone > other than ARIN responsible for documenting the legacy space. At least > that's what it looks like in my crystal ball. I disagree. RIPE and APNIC already went through this (i.e. dictating that legacy registrants had to pay for service like everyone else), with AFAIK no complains from above, so there is precedent for allowing it to happen. The sky did not fall. 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2312 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 17:21:57 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 17:21:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Yes, I agree. This is entirely opposite our standards of conduct. I ask that all re focus their attention on prop 171 and 172 and not worry about the property issue. It is irrelevant as related to these proposals. Best, Martin On Saturday, June 9, 2012, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > Not everyone is a psychopath with no interest in anyone but > > themselves, Bill. > > [Milton L Mueller] Whoa. Foul. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- Sent via a mobile device -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From astrodog at gmx.com Sat Jun 9 19:32:30 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 18:32:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources & ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD3DD0E.3050201@gmx.com> On 6/9/2012 4:21 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Yes, I agree. This is entirely opposite our standards of conduct. > > I ask that all re focus their attention on prop 171 and 172 and not > worry about the property issue. > It is irrelevant as related to these proposals. > > It seems a group of participants has certainly decided to use inflammatory language... however, that should not deter discussions about the property issue. The property issue seems to be the crux of both proposals. In the case of 171, the entire basis of the proposal centers around the property issue by granting explicit rights to legacy holders and explicitly making legacy addresses very, very "special" in terms of re-allocation, something the community does not appear to have any consensus surrounding, particularly given the complete lack of requirements for the entity obtaining the address beyond accurate whois information. It also makes legacy address space special in perpetuity, which also appears to run contrary to consensus. A more limited proposal that applies only to the original or current "owner" may be significantly more palpable, I don't know. 172 does not appear to account for actions ARIN and some legacy holders have already taken... it seems to be mutually exclusive with the facts on the ground as John has reported them. I'm not sure I even see a way for ARIN to implement this if it were to become policy. Re: 171: 8.4.1 removes the compatibility test that exists for other transfers to other RIRs under 8.3 8.4.2 is largely a non-op. Even if I can get a legacy /28, that doesn't mean anyone will route it. Allocation blocks smaller than /24 are almost certainly worthless to the kinds of entities that would be considering transfers under this proposal. 8.4.3 explicitly states that a needs test, as would be required under 8.3, is to be waived. 8.4.5 works against the intent of the proposal, given the numbers of legacy addresses where no such chain of custody exists. They simply "spawned" into being. This isn't ARIN's problem to solve. Buyers should obtain title insurance, or legal guarantees from sellers regarding the title / chain of custody situation. The potential overhead for ARIN with this section is also tremendous, as validating title and chain of custody is a theoretically endless process once a resource passes through a bankruptcy or, worse, has no origin whatsoever, simply because someone forgot to write down the original transaction. 8.4.6 Define "fail chain of custody certifications"? To use a similar situation that arises in real asset sales, simply because a building cannot currently pass a title search and be sold, does not mean whoever is presently occupying it is evicted. This section creates a massive risk for sellers with all but the most impeccable records. 8.4.7 This section serves to deter legacy entities from entering into an LRSA with ARIN at all. There's really a very simple question for the community here: "Are legacy addresses special *after* they have been transferred from their original legacy 'owner'?" As a consultant, 171 sounds great. I'm sure clients will end up paying me for more of my time if it is approved. As a participant on the PPML, it does not seem to serve its stated goals, and runs contrary to consensus. Opposed. Re: 172: With part 2 of the definition... how would already returned addresses that do not comply with part 2 be handled? In some cases, there is likely to be no business to ask again, or worse, a new user of of the space. Would these new users have clear title as it is defined by 171, or would the addresses be revoked? It appears that under the definition proposed, these re-allocated addresses would meet the definition of legacy address and under 171, would then fail a chain of custody search. This seems like screwing over a few random entities. Until a satisfactory answer to the above comes out, I'm opposed to this one as well. If these proposals are supported by the community, lets revive -1 and just thwack the needs test out of 8.3 and be done with this. 171 seems to operate as an "end run" around the community's position regarding the conditions of an 8.3 transfer that only 800lb gorillas can take advantage of. --- Harrison From paul at redbarn.org Sat Jun 9 21:46:53 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 01:46:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> On 2012-06-09 7:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> see, again, . > [Milton L Mueller] > > Paul, I already dealt with your arguments here, quite handily. > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/08/15/arin-and-vixie-get-nervous-about-competition/ > > perhaps you should "see, again..." thanks. i had not seen that. you appear to be arguing that i have a conflict of interest since i'm a trustee at arin, and your article implies that my arguments should not be taken at face value because anyone who agrees would naturally gravitate toward arin. while i'm not sure how the standard conflict of interest rules would apply since i'm not paid by arin and since arin has no shareholders. do you consider it self-dealing that my various non-remunerative activities are coherently aligned? (wouldn't that be a virtue?) in your attempted rebuttal you're putting a number of words in my mouth. and arin's mouth. i don't see any basis for these assertions, and they resplendently do not stand on their own. the meat of the matter appears to be this text: > It would be a simple matter for ARIN (and other RIRs) to set up > procedures to recognize and record transactions conducted by external > parties ? if they were willing to surrender pointless ?needs assessments.? in the interest of reaching some new ending to this periodic exchange of views, i'll do my utmost to take this seriously. "surrender" is the wrong word since arin (as an organization) can only do what the policies allow, and the policies are set by the community not by arin itself. if you think the policies should be different than they are, then by now i think you know how to change them. "pointless" is your own view, and anyone who doesn't think it's pointless is going to have a hard time understanding (or caring) what you're saying. you are demonstratively not the best friend of your own point of view here. > We have thousands of stock brokers and dozens of exchanges > independently trading shares, but somehow the world manages to keep > track of who does and does not own a specific quantity of critically > important stock certificates. So ARIN does not need to control, > mediate and set policy for all IP address transfers in order to > maintain an accurate database of who holds which address block. this... is a complete nonsequitur. first, your comparison of ip addresses to stock certificates on the basis of their uniqueness fails to address the fact that shares of stock are understood in law as a kind of property, and are issued by corporations under securities law that describes the specific ways they can be traded. for example, securities law touches on all kinds of issues like insider trading and market manipulation. there is no corpus of law anywhere that describes ip addresses as a kind of property and seeks to control the trading in same. i think this means that any similarity between a unique share of stock and a unique ip address are a figment of your apparently circular argument. "so arin does not need..." brings us back to that pig again, which could fly, but only if it had wings, which it does not, so, it cannot. > [arin] simply needs to serve as a title agency where people come to > record their transactions. It is in the self-interest of both sides of > an IP address transaction to ensure that their transfer of rights was > recorded and is published in a common, authoritative global Whois > database. i think we may have a breakthrough here. you care very deeply about the self-interest of both sides of a transaction, and as an unremitting anarcho-libertarian myself, i deeply resonate to that view. however, we are not talking about a share of stock, or a fungible currency unit, or a parcel of land, or an internet domain name here. the exclusive right to the use of a unique identifier on the internet is not a land grant. there is a third party at the table, which is not contemplated by the austrian or chicago schools of economics: the community, who created the numbering systems, and who operates the routers, has a say about who can hold what rights, and how those rights can be transferred. i think you "simply" need to stop thinking about ip addresses as assets having titles which can be traded, and focus your energies on studying what they actually are and how they differ from "property". note that if ip addresses were property, then the authors of RFC 791 and RFC 1883 would have had an extraordinary capital gains tax bill. > What?s really happening here is that Vixie and others at ARIN realize > that the only way to shield themselves against losing control over and > revenue from the IPv4 address market is to leverage their monopoly > over the IP address registration database. oh. damn. and for this i wasted the last 10 minutes answering this as if it were a serious rebuttal. i don't agree with your characterization of this as "dealt with ... quite handily." for the record i derive zero revenue from ip address allocation. as a trustee for arin, i am a volunteer. arin, being a 501(c)(6) non-profit industry trade association, has no shareholders. paul From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Sat Jun 9 22:29:51 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:29:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FD4069F.7010305@burnttofu.net> Opposed. On 05/23/12 14:56, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources > > The proposal originator revised the proposal. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 2 > > Date: 23 May 2012 > > Policy statement: > > 8.4 Transfers of Legacy Resources to Specified Recipients > > 8.4.1 Legacy Number Resource and ASN Transfers > > Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred to > organizations in any RIR's service region. > > 8.4.2 Minimum Transfer Size > > Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred in blocks > of the minimum allocation unit of the recipient RIR. > > 8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements > > Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number > resources and ASN's are waived. > > 8.4.4 Registry Services > > ARIN will insure that all parties to a legacy number resource or ASN > transfer agree to provide and maintain accurate WHOIS contact data in > compliance with WHOIS policy. Transfers shall not be completed until > all submitted WHOIS update data has been verified as accurate. > > 8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation > > No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody > demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the > legitimate holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the > resource. Upon confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource, > ARIN will certify that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain > this certification on file for future reference. > > 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications > > ARIN may reclaim legacy resources that fail chain of custody > certifications or are deemed fraudulently obtained at it's discretion. > > > Rationale: > > The ARIN region has a large pool of legacy number resources and ASN's > that most agree is causing the pace of IPv6 adoption to under-perform. > Providing a means through policy to exhaust these pools "should" > stimulate the adoption of IPv6. The language for non legacy address > and ASN transfers is unaffected in this proposal. > > The proposal seeks to set clear and written standards for both the > legacy and non legacy number resource and ASN transfer function along > a recognized boundary. Standard setting will have a desirable > technically oriented result that would benefit the community by moving > us closer to a) full compatibility of 16 and 32 bit ASN's b) bringing > the legacy trading market entirely above board c) providing standards > for them to operate by and d) providing for full transparency and > accountability to the community. Requiring a chain of custody > validation as part of the process will hopefully discourage > unauthorized transferors from wasting the effort and capital of > legitimate transferees and identify resources that are potentially > available for reclamation. The whois requirements are a small price to > pay for the ability to transfer a legacy resource. It should also be > noted that no party is prevented from signing an LRSA or RSA if they > so desire. > > It is recognized that this is a fairly interesting piece of policy > that would benefit tremendously from legal and staff review. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Sat Jun 9 22:33:43 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:33:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCCF21F.1020308@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCCF21F.1020308@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FD40787.9090404@burnttofu.net> Speaking as an operator, I see no real basis for this policy. Opposed. michael On 06/04/12 10:36, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 4 June 2012 > > Proposal type: NEW > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its predecessors) > prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 and not contractually > obligated otherwise to any RIR. > > Rationale: > > The NRPM does not include a definition of a legacy resource. The ARIN > LRSA contains a possibly reasonable definition of a legacy resource > which is wholly included in this definition with an addendum after > "1997". > > Through a variety of publicly reported transactions and discussions > amongst the community we have learned that there are two distinct > types of addresses, those that are subject to their agreements which > are typically for services with an RIR and those that are not. This > proposal offers a definition that clarifies that distinction and for > the purpose of establishing a basis for policy development supporting > legal process (bankruptcy, estates, et. al.) for un obligated legacy > resources. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mysidia at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 22:54:44 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 21:54:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FBD5D29.2070403@arin.net> Message-ID: On 5/23/12, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources I am strongly opposed to Proposal 171, because it codifies unfair preferential treatment for holders with legacy resources, eg ICP-2: "neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties. All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally." "8.4.1 ...Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred to organizations in any RIR's service region." This proposed section provides unequal treatment, because it means "Legacy resource holders" will be enabled to transfer resources to any service region; whereas holders of non-Legacy resources will be restricted from transferring their resources, to specific service regions that have a compatible justified-need based policy. "8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements ... Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number resources and ASN's are waived." This proposed section provides unequal treatment, because needs assessments are required for everyone else, but not resource holders transferring legacy resources. -- -JH From mysidia at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 23:07:15 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:07:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCCF21F.1020308@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCCF21F.1020308@arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/4/12, ARIN wrote: > "and not contractually obligated otherwise to any RIR." I am opposed to Proposal 172; it is mostly unnecessary. And carries an assertion that legacy resource holders are "not obligated to any RIR;" which might be seen to extend rights that have not been provided to legacy resource holders and legacy resources. This proposal takes further action to "legitimize" and "acknowledge" the continued existence of legacy resource holders, who have failed thus far to adhere to current RIR policies and maintain their resources as required under current IANA and RIR policy. For example, failure to pay maintenance fees or maintain accurate WHOIS information. -- -JH From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 9 23:26:48 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:26:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] > > thanks. i had not seen that. you appear to be arguing that i have a > conflict of interest since i'm a trustee at arin, and your article > implies that my arguments should not be taken at face value because [Milton L Mueller] we can set that issue aside. It's a distraction at this point. > > We have thousands of stock brokers and dozens of exchanges > > independently trading shares, but somehow the world manages to keep > > track of who does and does not own a specific quantity of critically > > important stock certificates. So ARIN does not need to control, > > mediate and set policy for all IP address transfers in order to > > maintain an accurate database of who holds which address block. > > this... is a complete nonsequitur. first, your comparison of ip > addresses to stock certificates on the basis of their uniqueness fails > to address the fact that shares of stock are understood in law as a kind > of property, and are issued by corporations under securities law that [Milton L Mueller] You missed the target. The ability of thousands of stock brokers and multiple exchanges to keep track of who is assigned a distinct set of shares actually has nothing to do with whether the asset in question is legally considered property or not. It's simply a matter of how one manages shared databases with unique numbers in them (in this case, CUSIP numbers http://www.sec.gov/answers/cusip.htm ) And that is directly parallel to keeping track of ownership - or community assigned holdership, if you prefer - of IP address blocks. > "so arin does not need..." brings us back to that pig again, which could > fly, but only if it had wings, which it does not, so, it cannot. [Milton L Mueller] oink. who you callin' a pig? ;-) > i think we may have a breakthrough here. you care very deeply about the > self-interest of both sides of a transaction, and as an unremitting > anarcho-libertarian myself, i deeply resonate to that view. however, we > are not talking about a share of stock, or a fungible currency unit, or > a parcel of land, or an internet domain name here. the exclusive right > to the use of a unique identifier on the internet is not a land grant. > there is a third party at the table, which is not contemplated by the > austrian or chicago schools of economics: the community, who created the > numbering systems, and who operates the routers, has a say about who can > hold what rights, and how those rights can be transferred. [Milton L Mueller] The Austrian and Chicago schools have quite a lot to say about "the community" or various other labels of collective control of resources, you should look into it some time. By the way, some of the people who operate routers are legacy holders and seem quite interested in maintaining their rights to trade the asset and to benefit from its use. > i think you "simply" need to stop thinking about ip addresses as assets > having titles which can be traded, and focus your energies on studying [Milton L Mueller] but they _can_ be traded, and _are_ being traded. And RSAs and Whois registrations are nothing if not "titles." Is this dialogue moving backwards to 2005? > note that if > ip addresses were property, then the authors of RFC 791 and RFC 1883 > would have had an extraordinary capital gains tax bill. [Milton L Mueller] Propertization is a process, not a static quality. Under certain social conditions (e.g., internet addresses in 1983, or most North American land in 1432), there is no need for resources to be propertized; under tighter, more scarce conditions, there is. Many, many resources in history are open and unrestricted common pools, and then become divided into property parcels and allocated by the market. From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 23:47:39 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:47:39 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > [Milton L Mueller] Propertization is a process, not a static quality. Under certain social conditions (e.g., internet addresses in 1983, or most North American land in 1432), there is no need for resources to be propertized; I see no NEED in this case, only a DESIRE to commoditize/propertize. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From scott at sonic.net Sat Jun 9 23:33:38 2012 From: scott at sonic.net (Scott Doty) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:33:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD41592.4030904@sonic.net> On 06/09/2012 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> Not everyone is a psychopath with no interest in anyone but >> themselves, Bill. > [Milton L Mueller] Whoa. Foul. > A point of order, please: I've just took the time to read an article that a discussion participant wrote that ends with the following bit of business: |[Milton L Mueller] | Only someone determined to preserve ARIN?s monopoly would ever make the claims [Paul Vixie] makes. Not only do we have a logical fallacy -- an ad hominem argument -- but a hyperbolic statement that would seem to be projecting the very arrogance referred to in the article he cites. I hope that is just an illusion. Mr. Mueller: Mr. Vixie has just taken time out of his Saturday to respond to your note -- and I suspect he would have been happy to have responded to it sooner, had he known it was there. He has very carefully left your person out of the argument, and responded to the argument itself. To me, that shows a remarkable charity and restraint. Would it be possible for you to step back and look at the discussion _itself_, objectively, leaving Paul's person out of it? Can you make your case with the same charity? And so there is no mistake: I'm not bringing this up to be some kind of "mediator", but only to actually _remark_ on said remarkable charity and restraint. And, I guess, for the following: I almost never post to this list, so I am going to give some personal details. Not because I'd like them to be attacked, but because I'm trusting folks on the list to consider my expertise when I say that I think IP addresses are less of a "property" or "asset" than someone's street address. A street address tells you where the property is, it isn't the property itself. It's not a perfect analogy, but it does help illustrate how we can apply everyday thinking to something that is an assigned 32-bit number. (When we run out of room on this planet, and we start building extra stories onto buildings to house humans, get back to me about my IP-address-as-street-address analogy...) So, personally -- as an operator for over 18 years, as well as being a voting member of the ACM for most of that -- I have to wonder, why could you not have made the economic discussion in ACM Queue itself? And finally -- if the discussion of IP-address-as-property is off-topic for the list, I would very much appreciate if someone would point to a venue where we can all go an hash that out. Because it is a) fascinating, and b) might be a good topic to show the flaws with the Austrian and Chicago and whatever schools of economics people want to try to apply. Thanks, -Scott Doty (doty at acm.org is my acm address) From paul at redbarn.org Sat Jun 9 23:59:13 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:59:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> On 2012-06-10 3:26 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] >> this... is a complete nonsequitur. first, your comparison of ip >> addresses to stock certificates on the basis of their uniqueness fails >> to address the fact that shares of stock are understood in law as a kind >> of property, and are issued by corporations under securities law that > [Milton L Mueller] You missed the target. The ability of thousands of stock brokers and multiple exchanges to keep track of who is assigned a distinct set of shares actually has nothing to do with whether the asset in question is legally considered property or not. It's simply a matter of how one manages shared databases with unique numbers in them (in this case, CUSIP numbers http://www.sec.gov/answers/cusip.htm ) And that is directly parallel to keeping track of ownership - or community assigned holdership, if you prefer - of IP address blocks. no sir, it is not directly parallel. community assigned holdership takes the place of securities law in your example. therefore the ability and methods of resource trading are a matter to be determined by the same community who would decide whether to recognize those trades. > [Milton L Mueller] ... By the way, some of the people who operate routers are legacy holders and seem quite interested in maintaining their rights to trade the asset and to benefit from its use. i agree with this statement, because many of those legacy holders have participated in the policy development process which led to NRPM 8.3 "Transfers to Specified Recipients". more than a few legacy holders have signed the LRSA as well. i am aware of no disenfranchised subcommunity of network operators who hold legacy resources and who cannot or have not aired their views in the public policy development process. >> i think you "simply" need to stop thinking about ip addresses as assets >> having titles which can be traded, and focus your energies on studying > [Milton L Mueller] but they _can_ be traded, and _are_ being traded. And RSAs and Whois registrations are nothing if not "titles." Is this dialogue moving backwards to 2005? i've been told by several operators that they are aware of or engaging in underground optioning of rights, in order to lay in a long term supply of growth capacity for their ipv4 networks. each of them plans to execute NRPM 8.3 trades when they can justify each tranche they have options on. none of them has told me that they need a new registry without ARIN's "needs basis" in order to run their businesses. if so, this would be outside the sphere of ARIN policy and would not in any way alter the nature of ip numbering resources as "not property". if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all ears, please regale me. >> note that if ip addresses were property, then the authors of RFC 791 and RFC 1883 >> would have had an extraordinary capital gains tax bill. > [Milton L Mueller] Propertization is a process, not a static quality. Under certain social conditions (e.g., internet addresses in 1983, or most North American land in 1432), there is no need for resources to be propertized; under tighter, more scarce conditions, there is. Many, many resources in history are open and unrestricted common pools, and then become divided into property parcels and allocated by the market. if any network operator within the sound of my voice sees a need to "propertize" ip address resources beyond what's allowed by NRPM 8.3 and what's apparently being done off-books with options on future needs-based trades, i would very much appreciate an education from you, which i'll accept under NDA if you ask for that. at this moment the only people i know of who want what dr. mueller is calling "propertization" are speculators, not operators. but: the community whose consensus created the IPv4 (in RFC 791) and IPv6 (in RFC 1883) address space does not recognize the rights of speculators, only operators. paul From JOHN at egh.com Sun Jun 10 14:05:03 2012 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:05:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1120610140418.53624B-100000@Ives.egh.com> +1 Opposed. On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 5/23/12, ARIN wrote: > > ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources > > I am strongly opposed to Proposal 171, because it codifies unfair > preferential treatment for holders with legacy resources, eg ICP-2: > "neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties. > All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be > treated equally." > > "8.4.1 ...Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred > to organizations in any RIR's service region." > > This proposed section provides unequal treatment, because it means > "Legacy resource holders" will be enabled to transfer resources to any > service region; whereas holders of non-Legacy resources will be > restricted from transferring their resources, to specific service > regions that have a compatible justified-need based policy. > > "8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements ... Needs > assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number resources > and ASN's are waived." > > This proposed section provides unequal treatment, because needs > assessments are required for everyone else, but not resource > holders transferring legacy resources. > > -- > -JH > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From hannigan at gmail.com Sun Jun 10 16:04:56 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:04:56 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources & ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FD3DD0E.3050201@gmx.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3DD0E.3050201@gmx.com> Message-ID: Harrison, I appreciate the thought that you put into your reply. Inline. On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Astrodog wrote: > On 6/9/2012 4:21 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree. This is entirely opposite our standards of conduct. >> >> I ask that all re focus their attention on prop 171 and 172 and not >> worry about the property issue. >> ?It is irrelevant as related to these proposals. >> >> > It seems a group of participants has certainly decided to use > inflammatory language... however, that should not deter discussions > about the property issue. The property issue seems to be the crux of I agree, although I continue to assert that they aren't relative to these proposals. > both proposals. In the case of 171, the entire basis of the proposal > centers around the property issue by granting explicit rights to legacy > holders and explicitly making legacy addresses very, very "special" in > terms of re-allocation, something the community does not appear to have > any consensus surrounding, particularly given the complete lack of > requirements for the entity obtaining the address beyond accurate whois > information. It also makes legacy address space special in perpetuity, > which also appears to run contrary to consensus. A more limited proposal I am not defining a special class. ARIN has already done that. The definition is already in the LRSA and the bankruptcy disadvantage that we repeatedly observe underscores that this is a fact already. > that applies only to the original or current "owner" may be > significantly more palpable, I don't know. 172 does not appear to > account for actions ARIN and some legacy holders have already taken... > it seems to be mutually exclusive with the facts on the ground as John > has reported them. I'm not sure I even see a way for ARIN to implement > this if it were to become policy. I'd need to wait for the legal review to ascertain if that was actually a problem, but it could be fixed it if is. > > Re: 171: > > 8.4.1 removes the compatibility test that exists for other transfers to > other RIRs under 8.3 > > 8.4.2 is largely a non-op. Even if I can get a legacy /28, that doesn't > mean anyone will route it. Allocation blocks smaller than /24 are almost > certainly worthless to the kinds of entities that would be considering > transfers under this proposal. True, but if another RIR is willing to accept a /28 and their members peers are willing to listen to it, why not? We also learned a lesson from a global policy round where the RIR's appreciate it when you don't set their standards. Defining a minimum allocation unit for them seems unnecessary. > 8.4.3 explicitly states that a needs test, as would be required under > 8.3, is to be waived. Yes. I think that we should treat all legacy space equal, bankruptcy or not. > > 8.4.5 works against the intent of the proposal, given the numbers of > legacy addresses where no such chain of custody exists. They simply > "spawned" into being. This isn't ARIN's problem to solve. Buyers should > obtain title insurance, or legal guarantees from sellers regarding the > title / chain of custody situation. The potential overhead for ARIN with > this section is also tremendous, as validating title and chain of > custody is a theoretically endless process once a resource passes > through a bankruptcy or, worse, has no origin whatsoever, simply because > someone forgot to write down the original transaction. The overhead should be borne by the parties transferring the resource. I would think that this is already the case, that ARIN asks for the chain of custody rather than create it themselves. > > 8.4.6 Define "fail chain of custody certifications"? To use a similar > situation that arises in real asset sales, simply because a building > cannot currently pass a title search and be sold, does not mean whoever > is presently occupying it is evicted. This section creates a massive > risk for sellers with all but the most impeccable records. As much as I dislike vague language in the NRPM, this seems to be one proposal where it is somewhat useful. I am not advocating for evicting users of addresses. I'm ok encouraging them to make a deal with the rightful holder and if they can't then being "evicted" from the space. > > 8.4.7 This section serves to deter legacy entities from entering into an > LRSA with ARIN at all. I'm not sure how ARIN can execute an LRSA with an unauthorized party unless they are already doing some validation. I'm not sure that this is bad to be honest. > There's really a very simple question for the community here: "Are > legacy addresses special *after* they have been transferred from their > original legacy 'owner'?" > > As a consultant, 171 sounds great. I'm sure clients will end up paying > me for more of my time if it is approved. As a participant on the PPML, > it does not seem to serve its stated goals, and runs contrary to consensus. > > Opposed. > > Re: 172: > > With part 2 of the definition... how would already returned addresses > that do not comply with part 2 be handled? In some cases, there is > likely to be no business to ask again, or worse, a new user of of the In the case of bankruptcy, there is *always* someone that will pick up the forgotten scraps athough I do not know if there is a statute of limitations on creditor claims. I would leave that to ARIN to determine as part of implementation. If someone picked the resources up off of the floor of an entity that simply opted to go out of business, I do not believe that they are the rightful holder of the resources. But the law might. If so, that will be the case, but that is something that is a legal issue, not policy. > space. Would these new users have clear title as it is defined by 171, > or would the addresses be revoked? It appears that under the definition > proposed, these re-allocated addresses would meet the definition of > legacy address and under 171, would then fail a chain of custody search. > This seems like screwing over a few random entities. I'm sure that can be dealt with from a legal perspective. > Until a satisfactory answer to the above comes out, I'm opposed to this > one as well. You'd have to wait until legal review so perhaps not opposing it until a later stage would be helpful. Best, -M< From mike at nationwideinc.com Mon Jun 11 13:47:20 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:47:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <30F518BB-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <"CAP-guGU+8mw91NDvcX+EHU3esJE1jP1J7ioFBgXwCdH2Wb2p0A"@mail.gmail.com> <"CAP-guGVMg3Z=obO6EWP_t9nSGhCvMR304bG-qBhNMc9mO5Oayw"@mail.gmail.com><"CAP-guGUss KbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeOW xMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNjF-9 tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video> <30F518BB-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: >Mike - > Please explain - what information is being sought from ARIN's Counsel? >Thanks! >/John Hi John, Sorry for the delay in responding. I am not a lawyer, and would appreciate some help from ARIN's counsel on some elements of the law which escape me. Let?s take this hypothetical: Legacy holder A, who has not signed the LRSA, sells his address rights to B, who requests ARIN to change Whois without a needs test. ARIN refuses and instead begins the process of revoking and re-assigning those addresses. What is ARIN's exposure to a claim of tortuous interference with the contract between parties A and B ? Or this: Legacy holder A, who has not signed the LRSA, claims the right to sell his ownership rights to anybody in the world, despite being a non-functional, bankrupt entity. Can ARIN rescind his addresses? Let's say in this hypothetical that the business has not been operating for 10 years. Could the fact that ARIN did not pursue it's claim for that length of time afford legacy holder an affirmative defense of laches? Or this: Legacy holder A, who has not signed the LRSA, asserts that he has property rights in the addresses, claiming that the original allocation by ARIN's predecessors came without contractual restrictions on this bundle of rights: 1.the right to use the good 2.the right to earn income from the good 3.the right to transfer the good to others 4.the right to enforcement of property rights He claims he has used the addresses. He claims to have earned income from the addresses. He claims that he has transferred the addresses to others via an asset sale contract. He claims that that asset sale contract is enforced by the State, as all contracts are. How strong is his claim to the property rights? Thanks in advance for any input you can provide. It may be that I am asking the wrong questions, so any assistance in correct legal phraseology would be appreciated. It may be that the discussion in this thread has moved on, so please change the subject line if you think appropriate. Regards, Mike From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 11 16:05:39 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:05:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <"CAP-guGUss KbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeOW xMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com> <"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNjF-9 tFg"@mail.gmail.com> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <"E3EE76FD- 9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com> <620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video> <30F518BB-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> On Jun 11, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > Hi John, > > Sorry for the delay in responding. I am not a lawyer, and would appreciate some help from ARIN's counsel on some elements of the law which escape me. > > Let?s take this hypothetical: Mike - We don't engage our counsel in hypothetical situations or generating advisory opinions as they are seldom representative of the real world and can easily lead to being misconstrued. In addition, there is very real cost management aspect to be considered. If you wish to propose a policy, a review of ARIN's legal situation that will result from adoption will occur during the staff and legal review process. You might also want to review this article written by Steve Ryan, ARIN's counsel, as it addresses some of the questions regarding how ARIN views address holders rights to number resources - http://www.mwe.com/info/pubs/internetprotocolnumbers0212.pdf Several of your questions are predicated on contrary views and it is not ARIN's role to postulate on their merits (or lack thereof.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jrhett at netconsonance.com Mon Jun 11 17:03:46 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:03:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218609B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3345F1CC-3764-44E7-96B8-CFF68926BA19@netconsonance.com> On Jun 9, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> Not everyone is a psychopath with no interest in anyone but >> themselves, Bill. > > [Milton L Mueller] Whoa. Foul. Whoops. On re-reading, I realized that it could be interpreted as suggesting that about Bill, which I wasn't. I was intending to say that most people understand and appreciate the value of working within existing structures, and more to the point not quoted above, would not see value in the disruptive cost of going against the existing systems. No matter how libertarian one might be, (successful) business people understand risk and cost of disruption. Thus my point was that the expressed concern of businesses going their own way is a valid risk, but not a probable risk. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at nationwideinc.com Mon Jun 11 17:19:40 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:19:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <"CAP-guGUssKbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeOW xMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNjF-9 tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net> <"E3EE76FD- 9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518BB-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@co rp.arin.net> <4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> Message-ID: Thanks and regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: John Curran Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:05 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources On Jun 11, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > Hi John, > > Sorry for the delay in responding. I am not a lawyer, and would appreciate > some help from ARIN's counsel on some elements of the law which escape me. > > Let?s take this hypothetical: Mike - We don't engage our counsel in hypothetical situations or generating advisory opinions as they are seldom representative of the real world and can easily lead to being misconstrued. In addition, there is very real cost management aspect to be considered. If you wish to propose a policy, a review of ARIN's legal situation that will result from adoption will occur during the staff and legal review process. You might also want to review this article written by Steve Ryan, ARIN's counsel, as it addresses some of the questions regarding how ARIN views address holders rights to number resources - http://www.mwe.com/info/pubs/internetprotocolnumbers0212.pdf Several of your questions are predicated on contrary views and it is not ARIN's role to postulate on their merits (or lack thereof.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From info at arin.net Mon Jun 11 18:01:19 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:01:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN returns some IPv4 address space to IANA Message-ID: <4FD66AAF.5000107@arin.net> <> Given the recent ICANN Board adoption of Global Policy Proposal-IPv4?2011, the ARIN Board of Trustees at its 6 June meeting directed ARIN staff to return to the IANA the IPv4 address blocks that have been voluntarily returned to ARIN in recent years. The total amount of space being returned to the IANA amounts to roughly a /8 equivalent and includes the large block of IPv4 addresses returned to ARIN by Interop in 2010. Below is the final list of address space that has been returned to the IANA and this will be reflected in ARIN's database within the next few hours. 45.2.0.0/15 45.4.0.0/14 45.8.0.0/13 45.16.0.0/12 45.32.0.0/11 45.64.0.0/10 45.128.0.0/9 66.218.132.0/23 66.251.128.0/18 72.44.16.0/20 74.91.48.0/20 144.48.0.0/16 162.12.196.0/22 162.12.200.0/21 162.12.208.0/21 162.12.216.0/22 162.12.224.0/21 162.12.232.0/22 162.12.240.0/21 192.75.4.0/24 192.75.137.0/24 192.75.236.0/24 192.147.11.0/24 192.156.202.0/24 192.197.113.0/24 192.231.238.0/24 198.17.79.0/24 199.21.172.0/22 199.212.57.0/24 204.8.204.0/22 204.11.0.0/22 204.48.32.0/23 204.52.191.0/24 204.225.42.0/23 205.211.83.0/24 207.115.112.0/20 208.73.240.0/22 208.85.156.0/22 209.107.128.0/18 216.98.208.0/20 216.250.96.0/20 Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From mike at nationwideinc.com Mon Jun 11 20:20:21 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:20:21 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><"CAP-guGUssKbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeO WxMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNj F-9tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.ne t> Message-ID: <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> Hi John, Just finished the Steve Ryan piece, thanks. I wanted to share an alternate perspective from a lawyer and sometime contributor here on the PPML: http://addrex.net/documents/2012/02/rubi-aipla-qj.pdf I think the argument about property rights for legacy space is germane to this list, and we run the risks of creating policy in contravention of the law if we don't fully understand each point of view. I think a debate between Ryan and Rubi would be more edifying than a debate between yourself and Prof. Mueller. But I would buy popcorn for both. Regards, Mike >Mike - >You might also want to review this article written by Steve Ryan, ARIN's counsel, as it addresses some of the questions regarding how ARIN views address holders rights to number resources - >http://www.mwe.com/info/pubs/internetprotocolnumbers0212.pdf Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 11 20:33:17 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:33:17 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><"CAP-guGUssKbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeO WxMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNj F-9tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.ne t> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> Message-ID: <34EB84F5-15CB-44D1-A60A-9B56EE451805@arin.net> On Jun 11, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > I think the argument about property rights for legacy space is germane to this list, and we run the risks of creating policy in contravention of the law if we don't fully understand each point of view. Mike - As noted, ARIN already has adequate counsel to provide legal advice regarding policy changes. Please feel free to propose any policy changes as desired. As has been noted previously, it will not be this list, but courtrooms where such matters are decided. Best, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mike at nationwideinc.com Mon Jun 11 20:41:09 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:41:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacyresources References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNj F-9tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <34EB84F5-15CB-44D1-A60A-9B56EE451805@arin.net> Message-ID: <1B6F82F8E13C4E9DA1A7D1D848C6277A@video> >As has been noted previously, it will not be this list, but courtrooms where such matters are decided. > John The courtroom confrontation could be avoided by aligning policy with property law. Just sayin'. Mike From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 11 20:48:48 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:48:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacyresources In-Reply-To: <1B6F82F8E13C4E9DA1A7D1D848C6277A@video> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNj F-9tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <34EB84F5-15CB-44D1-A60A-9B56EE451805@arin.net> <1B6F82F8E13C4E9DA1A7D1D848C6277A@video> Message-ID: On Jun 11, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > The courtroom confrontation could be avoided by aligning policy with property law. That would make as lot of sense if property was actually involved, but as best we can tell, address holders have certain rights to blocks (which may indeed by transferrable in accordance with policy and hence valuable as assets of an estate), but those are not the only rights involved as the community has certain rights with respect to same address blocks. This also means that the policies set by the community are quite important in determining how these rights interact with respect to changes in the registry. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jrhett at netconsonance.com Tue Jun 12 01:09:00 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:09:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><"CAP-guGUssKbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeO WxMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNj F-9tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.ne t> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> Message-ID: <9D6FB616-2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com> I think that this conversation demonstrates some deep confusion over what property is. Property: are those tangible assets that you own. You know, the hardware you use to provide the service on. You bought them. This stuff is not unlike a house, or perhaps one could argue, a mobile home. Address: is that thing you get from the community which allows you to receive mail, and for others to find you. And the community can vote to change it. And does, not often, but perhaps more often than many people expect. I find it totally amusing that "allows you to receive mail, and for others to find you" amazingly sums up both the real uses of physical and IP address ;-) But neither one is owned, and both can be changed or even taken away if the community votes to do so. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 12 08:37:09 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:37:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] > no sir, it is not directly parallel. community assigned holdership takes > the place of securities law in your example. therefore the ability and > methods of resource trading are a matter to be determined by the same > community who would decide whether to recognize those trades. [Milton L Mueller] you are again missing the point, or we are talking past each other. The issue is not what law applies. The issue is whether multiple entities (brokers and registries) can coordinate resources that are traded. You argued in your ACM piece that "physics" prevented it. The CUSIP example proves you wrong. > >> i think you "simply" need to stop thinking about ip addresses as > >> assets having titles which can be traded, and focus your energies on > >> studying > > [Milton L Mueller] but they _can_ be traded, and _are_ being traded. > And RSAs and Whois registrations are nothing if not "titles." Is this > dialogue moving backwards to 2005? > > i've been told by several operators that they are aware of or engaging > in underground optioning of rights, in order to lay in a long term > supply of growth capacity for their ipv4 networks. each of them plans to > execute NRPM 8.3 trades when they can justify each tranche they have > options on. none of them has told me that they need a new registry > without ARIN's "needs basis" in order to run their businesses. if so, [Milton L Mueller] That's interesting, and that's fine by me and apparently by you. If indeed you are speaking for every single legacy holder, which I doubt, there will be no need to quarrel about this issue, because there will be no need for ARIN to try to force them to trade via its own process by threatening to de-list the transferred blocks. If you are not right....? > if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which > reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use > address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all > ears, please regale me. [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that. If you are confident that no legacy holders will ever try to engage in trades outside of ARIN, then you really shouldn't care about this definition, should you? > at this moment the only > people i know of who want what dr. mueller is calling "propertization" > are speculators, not operators. [Milton L Mueller] I am quite confident that this is incorrect. last time I looked the proponent of this prop-172 was an operator (Marty) as well as some of its supporters. From JOHN at egh.com Tue Jun 12 09:46:20 2012 From: JOHN at egh.com (John Santos) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:46:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1120612091511.19308B-100000@Ives.egh.com> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] > > > if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which > > reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use > > address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all > > ears, please regale me. > > [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of > this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in > a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN > holds rights over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the > proposed definition because of that. This is a strawman. That is not the only or even the common reason why at least some people oppose this proposal. 1) It codifies practices and applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous practice, in that requires a written agreement. 2) It extends the scope ot "legacy" status well beyond the current de facto situation. 3) It ignores that despite the lack or a written RSA, there was an understanding between ARIN's predecessors and address holders that the addresses were to be used for network numbering and management, were issued on a needs basis, and were to be returned or reallocated if the holder's needs changed. See the template we needed to fill out in order to receive our initial legacy assignment back in the early 1990s. (I only have this on paper so can't link to it.) The "definition" in this proposal is actually policy in sheep's clothing. Opposed. -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 12 09:51:33 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:51:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <9D6FB616-2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><"CAP-guGUssKbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeO WxMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNj F-9tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.ne t> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <9D6FB616-2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Jo, glad to see you back away from the "psychotic" remark. As for confusion about what property is, it is well accepted among political economists that there can be property rights in intangible assets. A property right is defined in economics as the right to exclude, the right to use and the benefit from the use, and the right to trade or assign to others. So to shift slightly to another context, you think that telephone number portability plans, which facilitated competition by giving end users a property right in their number, allowing them to move them from carrier to carrier, was a bad thing? After all, a telephone number "allows you to receive [calls] and for others to find you" and thus conforms exactly to your definition of an address. By the way, whether the community can take away property rights has nothing to do with whether the rights are property rights or whether it is a good thing to assign them in the first place. E.g., in certain countries tanks claiming the mandate from "the community" can arrive at your door and expropriate your land. Doesn't mean your land isn't property, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. > -----Original Message----- > I think that this conversation demonstrates some deep confusion over > what property is. > > Property: are those tangible assets that you own. You know, the hardware > you use to provide the service on. You bought them. This stuff is not > unlike a house, or perhaps one could argue, a mobile home. > > Address: is that thing you get from the community which allows you to > receive mail, and for others to find you. And the community can vote to > change it. And does, not often, but perhaps more often than many people > expect. > > I find it totally amusing that "allows you to receive mail, and for > others to find you" amazingly sums up both the real uses of physical and > IP address ;-) But neither one is owned, and both can be changed or > even taken away if the community votes to do so. > > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet > projects. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 12 09:54:39 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:54:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <1120612091511.19308B-100000@Ives.egh.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1120612091511.19308B-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218776E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context > > of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy > > resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have > > insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources > > and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that. > > This is a strawman. That is not the only or even the common reason why > at least some people oppose this proposal. 1) It codifies practices and > applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous > practice, in that requires a written agreement. [Milton L Mueller] huh? ARIN has no authority other than its written agreements. > 2) It extends the scope > ot "legacy" status well beyond the current de facto situation. [Milton L Mueller] debatable. > 3) It ignores that despite the lack or a written RSA, there was an > understanding between ARIN's predecessors and address holders that the > addresses were to be used for network numbering and management, were > issued on a needs basis, and were to be returned or reallocated if the > holder's needs changed. [Milton L Mueller] utterly false, factually. The legacy allocations made in the 1980s did not carry any such implications, you are reading current policies and obligations backwards into history. From tvest at eyeconomics.com Tue Jun 12 10:26:06 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:26:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8EE5D408-CDD3-45EF-AA82-2F7361FD6A1E@eyeconomics.com> On Jun 12, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] >> no sir, it is not directly parallel. community assigned holdership takes >> the place of securities law in your example. therefore the ability and >> methods of resource trading are a matter to be determined by the same >> community who would decide whether to recognize those trades. > > [Milton L Mueller] you are again missing the point, or we are talking past each other. > The issue is not what law applies. The issue is whether multiple entities (brokers and registries) can coordinate resources that are traded. You argued in your ACM piece that "physics" prevented it. The CUSIP example proves you wrong. Hi Milton, It's nice to see that you've been giving more thought to the parallels between the Internet operations and monetary/financial industrial sectors ;-) Unfortunately, you're completely off base with this particular parallel. Are you suggesting that, of the several virtues that an Internet protocol number resource allocation regime might or might not possess, the capacity for "coordination of resources" *that are in the process of being traded* is more important than the capacity for reliable/predictable *use* of such resources when they are *not* in the process of being traded? After all, IP addresses are not financial instruments. The financial instruments for which CUSIP was developed derive exactly 0.00% of their value/functionality from non-trading related functions, whereas the exact opposite is true for Internet protocol number resources. While anything may be traded "in theory," in practice not all markets are self-sustaining, and not all self-sustaining markets are net beneficial -- even within the domain where CUSIP actually has operational relevance. Granted, the financial sector still seems to be quite comfortable with their mechanisms for "coordination of resources that are traded." But then the members of that industry seem to enjoy de facto blanket impunity from any adverse results arising from such trades, while retaining 100% of the upside. I doubt that the same will be true in our case, though it seems that some are quite eager to find out. Regards, TV >>>> i think you "simply" need to stop thinking about ip addresses as >>>> assets having titles which can be traded, and focus your energies on >>>> studying >>> [Milton L Mueller] but they _can_ be traded, and _are_ being traded. >> And RSAs and Whois registrations are nothing if not "titles." Is this >> dialogue moving backwards to 2005? >> >> i've been told by several operators that they are aware of or engaging >> in underground optioning of rights, in order to lay in a long term >> supply of growth capacity for their ipv4 networks. each of them plans to >> execute NRPM 8.3 trades when they can justify each tranche they have >> options on. none of them has told me that they need a new registry >> without ARIN's "needs basis" in order to run their businesses. if so, > > [Milton L Mueller] That's interesting, and that's fine by me and apparently by you. If indeed you are speaking for every single legacy holder, which I doubt, there will be no need to quarrel about this issue, because there will be no need for ARIN to try to force them to trade via its own process by threatening to de-list the transferred blocks. If you are not right....? > >> if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which >> reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use >> address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all >> ears, please regale me. > > [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that. If you are confident that no legacy holders will ever try to engage in trades outside of ARIN, then you really shouldn't care about this definition, should you? > >> at this moment the only >> people i know of who want what dr. mueller is calling "propertization" >> are speculators, not operators. > > [Milton L Mueller] I am quite confident that this is incorrect. last time I looked the proponent of this prop-172 was an operator (Marty) as well as some of its supporters. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jun 12 10:27:21 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:27:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218776E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1120612091511.19308B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218776E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD751C9.90905@umn.edu> On 6/12/12 08:54 CDT, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >>> [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context >>> of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy >>> resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have >>> insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources >>> and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that. >> >> This is a strawman. That is not the only or even the common reason why >> at least some people oppose this proposal. 1) It codifies practices and >> applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous >> practice, in that requires a written agreement. > > [Milton L Mueller] huh? ARIN has no authority other than its written agreements. If you are going to assert that Legacy Resource Holders have rights (property or otherwise) that are not codified in any written agreement either, then it is only reasonable to recognize that ARIN as the successor to the entities that assigned the resources to them has some authorities as well. However, it is clear at least to me, that both Legacy Resource holders have rights and ARIN has authorities. To say that ARIN has no authority is equally as wrong to say that Legacy, and other resource holders for that matter, have no rights. See, the third paragraph of section 3.1 of RFC 2050; IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met. The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists. In the event of address invalidation, reasonable efforts will be made by the appropriate registry to inform the organization that the addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv4 address space. This defines both some of the rights and the authorities in question. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 12 11:11:01 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:11:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218776E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1120612091511.19308B-100000@Ives.egh.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218776E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6214E3A4-2DB0-4F34-892B-296D715CB986@delong.com> On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >>> [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context >>> of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy >>> resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have >>> insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources >>> and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that. >> >> This is a strawman. That is not the only or even the common reason why >> at least some people oppose this proposal. 1) It codifies practices and >> applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous >> practice, in that requires a written agreement. > > [Milton L Mueller] huh? ARIN has no authority other than its written agreements. > No, ARIN also controls the contents of the databases it maintains, both public and private. Fortunately, ARIN uses that control judiciously and in compliance with community driven policies. >> 2) It extends the scope >> ot "legacy" status well beyond the current de facto situation. > > [Milton L Mueller] debatable. Not really... It's pretty much a statement of fact. >> 3) It ignores that despite the lack or a written RSA, there was an >> understanding between ARIN's predecessors and address holders that the >> addresses were to be used for network numbering and management, were >> issued on a needs basis, and were to be returned or reallocated if the >> holder's needs changed. > > [Milton L Mueller] utterly false, factually. The legacy allocations made in the 1980s did not carry any such implications, you are reading current policies and obligations backwards into history. There are direct quotes from Postel contrary to your statement here. Addresses were always issued based on need. The definition of need changed over time as did the ratio of addresses provided to need, but there was always an understanding along the lines stated above which was included in writing in templates in the late '80s. The fact that it was not written down before then does not mean that it did not exist. Owen From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 12 11:33:11 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:33:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><"CAP-guGUssKbnjYm6mr3m7ZRaEw=VwBDfeO WxMaDb9w-md0yt-g"@mail.gmail.com><"CAP-guGV6q0KaBCUh4OFi8v1kfqj6jR0D1BGDcUwXsaNj F-9tFg"@mail.gmail.com><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.ne t> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <9D6FB616-! 2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8FBA81C3-5681-4010-8BFF-AFFB6D065E97@delong.com> The following is strictly my own opinion. IANAL and I did not ask a lawyer about it. It is not intended as an expression of any opinion of ARIN, the AC, or anyone other than myself. On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Jo, glad to see you back away from the "psychotic" remark. > > As for confusion about what property is, it is well accepted among political economists that there can be property rights in intangible assets. A property right is defined in economics as the right to exclude, the right to use and the benefit from the use, and the right to trade or assign to others. Interesting that you use and in this definition. Since you use and, this does not, from my perspective, fit IP addresses as the right to exclude and the right to use are quite unclear even WRT ARIN issued addresses covered under RSA. Yes, there is a de facto tendency to be able to use and to use with at least some exclusivity. However, neither of those abilities is imbued or conveyed in the ARIN registration or governed by ARIN policy. Those abilities are an individual choice of each operator actually controlling routers and are not universal or in any way under control of ARIN or the registrant. > So to shift slightly to another context, you think that telephone number portability plans, which facilitated competition by giving end users a property right in their number, allowing them to move them from carrier to carrier, was a bad thing? After all, a telephone number "allows you to receive [calls] and for others to find you" and thus conforms exactly to your definition of an address. Telephone numbers were first divorced from the service delivery topological hierarchy before that was made possible in the telephone network. No such divorce has yet occurred in IP. As such, the semantics are necessarily quite different. Imagine trying to implement number portability prior to SS7 and you should get some idea of what this means in an IP context today. > By the way, whether the community can take away property rights has nothing to do with whether the rights are property rights or whether it is a good thing to assign them in the first place. E.g., in certain countries tanks claiming the mandate from "the community" can arrive at your door and expropriate your land. Doesn't mean your land isn't property, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. No such property rights as you define them exist. The community neither gives them nor takes them away because they are fictitious to begin with. The community controls policy over how the ARIN databases are updated. To the extent that legacy holders are effected by the contents of those databases, they are subject to ARIN policies whether or not they have any agreement with ARIN. Outside of concerns for what is contained in the ARIN databases, legacy holders have little or no implications from ARIN policy. Fortunately, the internet works because most people that run connected routers on the largest set of interconnections and interconnected routers ("the internet") at least so far abide (mostly) by the contents of the ARIN databases. To the extent that remains true if legacy holders diverge from the ARIN database, they could have interesting problems getting or keeping their networks connected with "the internet". Owen > >> -----Original Message----- >> I think that this conversation demonstrates some deep confusion over >> what property is. >> >> Property: are those tangible assets that you own. You know, the hardware >> you use to provide the service on. You bought them. This stuff is not >> unlike a house, or perhaps one could argue, a mobile home. >> >> Address: is that thing you get from the community which allows you to >> receive mail, and for others to find you. And the community can vote to >> change it. And does, not often, but perhaps more often than many people >> expect. >> >> I find it totally amusing that "allows you to receive mail, and for >> others to find you" amazingly sums up both the real uses of physical and >> IP address ;-) But neither one is owned, and both can be changed or >> even taken away if the community votes to do so. >> >> -- >> Jo Rhett >> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet >> projects. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mike at nationwideinc.com Tue Jun 12 11:52:47 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:52:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <8FBA81C3-5681-4010-8BFF-AFFB6D065E97@delong.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <9D6FB616-!2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FBA81C3-5681-4010-8BFF-AFFB6D065E97@delong.com> Message-ID: Pertinent to this discussion of property rights is Ernesto Rubi (who IS a lawyer)'s response to the Steve Ryan/Matthew Martel article. Rubi claims that legacy addresses meet the "basket of rights" test for property. http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf It's fine for us here at the PPML to declare what is and isn't property, but that is just our opinions. As has been noted, eventually a judge will decide, and it makes sense for us to anticipate that he will apply timeworn rules as to what is property and what isn't. Since legacy addresses, post-Nortel, meet the "basket of rights" test and have no written contract attached to them, I think it at least possible that a judge will find that legacy holders have property rights to their blocks. Certainly the right to not-use the addresses, the right to use the addresses, and the exclusive right to transfer the addresses were found to belong to Nortel, who was not the original allocant of the legacy space in question. How much further must the rights extend before they meet the test of property rights? Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:33 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources The following is strictly my own opinion. IANAL and I did not ask a lawyer about it. It is not intended as an expression of any opinion of ARIN, the AC, or anyone other than myself. On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Jo, glad to see you back away from the "psychotic" remark. > > As for confusion about what property is, it is well accepted among > political economists that there can be property rights in intangible > assets. A property right is defined in economics as the right to exclude, > the right to use and the benefit from the use, and the right to trade or > assign to others. Interesting that you use and in this definition. Since you use and, this does not, from my perspective, fit IP addresses as the right to exclude and the right to use are quite unclear even WRT ARIN issued addresses covered under RSA. Yes, there is a de facto tendency to be able to use and to use with at least some exclusivity. However, neither of those abilities is imbued or conveyed in the ARIN registration or governed by ARIN policy. Those abilities are an individual choice of each operator actually controlling routers and are not universal or in any way under control of ARIN or the registrant. > So to shift slightly to another context, you think that telephone number > portability plans, which facilitated competition by giving end users a > property right in their number, allowing them to move them from carrier to > carrier, was a bad thing? After all, a telephone number "allows you to > receive [calls] and for others to find you" and thus conforms exactly to > your definition of an address. Telephone numbers were first divorced from the service delivery topological hierarchy before that was made possible in the telephone network. No such divorce has yet occurred in IP. As such, the semantics are necessarily quite different. Imagine trying to implement number portability prior to SS7 and you should get some idea of what this means in an IP context today. > By the way, whether the community can take away property rights has > nothing to do with whether the rights are property rights or whether it is > a good thing to assign them in the first place. E.g., in certain countries > tanks claiming the mandate from "the community" can arrive at your door > and expropriate your land. Doesn't mean your land isn't property, doesn't > mean it's the right thing to do. No such property rights as you define them exist. The community neither gives them nor takes them away because they are fictitious to begin with. The community controls policy over how the ARIN databases are updated. To the extent that legacy holders are effected by the contents of those databases, they are subject to ARIN policies whether or not they have any agreement with ARIN. Outside of concerns for what is contained in the ARIN databases, legacy holders have little or no implications from ARIN policy. Fortunately, the internet works because most people that run connected routers on the largest set of interconnections and interconnected routers ("the internet") at least so far abide (mostly) by the contents of the ARIN databases. To the extent that remains true if legacy holders diverge from the ARIN database, they could have interesting problems getting or keeping their networks connected with "the internet". Owen > >> -----Original Message----- >> I think that this conversation demonstrates some deep confusion over >> what property is. >> >> Property: are those tangible assets that you own. You know, the hardware >> you use to provide the service on. You bought them. This stuff is not >> unlike a house, or perhaps one could argue, a mobile home. >> >> Address: is that thing you get from the community which allows you to >> receive mail, and for others to find you. And the community can vote to >> change it. And does, not often, but perhaps more often than many people >> expect. >> >> I find it totally amusing that "allows you to receive mail, and for >> others to find you" amazingly sums up both the real uses of physical and >> IP address ;-) But neither one is owned, and both can be changed or >> even taken away if the community votes to do so. >> >> -- >> Jo Rhett >> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet >> projects. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 12 12:25:55 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:25:55 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <9D6FB616-!2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FBA81C3-5681-4010-8BFF-AFFB6D065E97@delong.com> Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > Pertinent to this discussion of property rights is Ernesto Rubi (who IS a lawyer)'s response to the Steve Ryan/Matthew Martel article. > Rubi claims that legacy addresses meet the "basket of rights" test for property. > > http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf > > It's fine for us here at the PPML to declare what is and isn't property, but that is just our opinions. > As has been noted, eventually a judge will decide, and it makes sense for us to anticipate that he will apply timeworn rules as to what is property and what isn't. > Since legacy addresses, post-Nortel, meet the "basket of rights" test and have no written contract attached to them, I think it at least possible that a judge will find that legacy holders have property rights to their blocks. > What, exactly, do you mean by "their blocks"? Do you mean the addresses themselves? Do you mean the right to use those addresses to number a network? Do you mean the right to exclusivity from others using those addresses to number a network? Do you mean the registration of the association between the address numbers and the organization in the ARIN database? Do you mean some combination of these things? Depending on what, exactly you mean by "their blocks", we may or may not be talking about the same things at all. Again, strictly my own opinion, but: Addresses themselves do not have or convey any rights. They are merely integers and whether it's an IP address or a credit card number or an accounting term or a building number is strictly a matter of the context in which it is used. As such, I cannot imagine a property right here. In terms of the right to use those addresses to number a network, property remains a bit of a stretch unless you couple it with the right to exclusivity. Likewise, the right of exclusivity is nonsensical absent the right to use, so, rather than consider these separately, I'll consider them together. As I have said, the registration of an address does not convey the right to use that address on the internet, nor does it convey the right to exclude someone else from using that address on the internet. Instead, those rights are strictly under the control of those running the upstream or peer routers with which a given organization exchanges datagrams. If you believe that there is some basis in law for enforcing ARIN's view of these registrations as a form of rights and inflicting those rights upon 3rd party network operators, I'd like to see where in the law you believe such a basis would be created. Considering the association between the address and the organization, namely, the registration in the ARIN database, which is what can be traded under NRPM 8.3, then, yes, ARIN has stated that there are certain property rights in this registration and I am inclined to agree. However, the extent to which such rights exist outside of a contract with ARIN is questionable at best. Further, the right to force ARIN to update it's database and make changes to that registration outside of ARIN policy is certainly an unlikely (at best) extension of any such property rights to force ARIN to do so. If you mean some other (novel) combination of those elements, then please specify. > Certainly the right to not-use the addresses, the right to use the addresses, and the exclusive right to transfer the addresses were found to belong to Nortel, who was not the original allocant of the legacy space in question. I think you mean the exclusive right to transfer the registration, but, even that right was noted to be limited in scope by ARIN policy. The integers themselves were not transferred. The registrations associating the numbers with an organization in the ARIN database were transferred. > How much further must the rights extend before they meet the test of property rights? First we must define what you are claiming is property. Owen > > Regards, > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:33 AM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources > > The following is strictly my own opinion. IANAL and I did not ask a lawyer about it. It is not intended as an expression of any opinion of ARIN, the AC, or anyone other than myself. > > On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Jo, glad to see you back away from the "psychotic" remark. >> >> As for confusion about what property is, it is well accepted among political economists that there can be property rights in intangible assets. A property right is defined in economics as the right to exclude, the right to use and the benefit from the use, and the right to trade or assign to others. > > Interesting that you use and in this definition. Since you use and, this does not, from my perspective, fit IP addresses as the right to exclude and the right to use are quite unclear even WRT ARIN issued addresses covered under RSA. > > Yes, there is a de facto tendency to be able to use and to use with at least some exclusivity. However, neither of those abilities is imbued or conveyed in the ARIN registration or governed by ARIN policy. Those abilities are an individual choice of each operator actually controlling routers and are not universal or in any way under control of ARIN or the registrant. > >> So to shift slightly to another context, you think that telephone number portability plans, which facilitated competition by giving end users a property right in their number, allowing them to move them from carrier to carrier, was a bad thing? After all, a telephone number "allows you to receive [calls] and for others to find you" and thus conforms exactly to your definition of an address. > > Telephone numbers were first divorced from the service delivery topological hierarchy before that was made possible in the telephone network. No such divorce has yet occurred in IP. As such, the semantics are necessarily quite different. > > Imagine trying to implement number portability prior to SS7 and you should get some idea of what this means in an IP context today. > >> By the way, whether the community can take away property rights has nothing to do with whether the rights are property rights or whether it is a good thing to assign them in the first place. E.g., in certain countries tanks claiming the mandate from "the community" can arrive at your door and expropriate your land. Doesn't mean your land isn't property, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. > > No such property rights as you define them exist. The community neither gives them nor takes them away because they are fictitious to begin with. > > The community controls policy over how the ARIN databases are updated. To the extent that legacy holders are effected by the contents of those databases, they are subject to ARIN policies whether or not they have any agreement with ARIN. Outside of concerns for what is contained in the ARIN databases, legacy holders have little or no implications from ARIN policy. > > Fortunately, the internet works because most people that run connected routers on the largest set of interconnections and interconnected routers ("the internet") at least so far abide (mostly) by the contents of the ARIN databases. To the extent that remains true if legacy holders diverge from the ARIN database, they could have interesting problems getting or keeping their networks connected with "the internet". > > Owen > > > > >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> I think that this conversation demonstrates some deep confusion over >>> what property is. >>> >>> Property: are those tangible assets that you own. You know, the hardware >>> you use to provide the service on. You bought them. This stuff is not >>> unlike a house, or perhaps one could argue, a mobile home. >>> >>> Address: is that thing you get from the community which allows you to >>> receive mail, and for others to find you. And the community can vote to >>> change it. And does, not often, but perhaps more often than many people >>> expect. >>> >>> I find it totally amusing that "allows you to receive mail, and for >>> others to find you" amazingly sums up both the real uses of physical and >>> IP address ;-) But neither one is owned, and both can be changed or >>> even taken away if the community votes to do so. >>> >>> -- >>> Jo Rhett >>> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet >>> projects. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mike at nationwideinc.com Tue Jun 12 13:01:09 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:01:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <9D6FB616-!2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FBA81C3-5681-4010-8BFF-AFFB6D065E97@delong.com> Message-ID: Hi Owen, Responses inline. On Jun 12, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Mike Burns wrote: >> Pertinent to this discussion of property rights is Ernesto Rubi (who IS a >> lawyer)'s response to the Steve Ryan/Matthew Martel article. > >Rubi claims that legacy addresses meet the "basket of rights" test for > >property. > > >http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf > > >It's fine for us here at the PPML to declare what is and isn't property, > >but that is just our opinions. >> As has been noted, eventually a judge will decide, and it makes sense for >> us to anticipate that he will apply timeworn rules as to what is property >> and what isn't. > >Since legacy addresses, post-Nortel, meet the "basket of rights" test > >and have no written contract attached to them, I think it at least > >possible that a judge will find that legacy holders have property rights > >to their blocks. > >What, exactly, do you mean by "their blocks"? >Do you mean the addresses themselves? >Do you mean the right to use those addresses to number a network? >Do you mean the right to exclusivity from others using those addresses to >number a network? >Do you mean the registration of the association between the address numbers >and the organization in the ARIN database? >Do you mean some combination of these things? I mean the address blocks for which they have a chain-of-custody from themselves back to the original allocant, for which they have the exclusive right to use, to not-use, and to transfer. By transfer I mean sell for value, I do not mean ARIN changing a record in the Whois database. I am not saying they have the right to registration in the ARIN database. >Addresses themselves do not have or convey any rights. They are merely >integers and whether it's an IP address or a credit card number or an >accounting term or a building number is strictly a matter of the context in >which it is used. As such, I cannot imagine a property right here. I'm not talking about the addresses, but rather the address rights, which were conveyed with the original allocation from an agency working under some contractual relationship with the US government. These rights have passed from party to party on innumerable contracts. >In terms of the right to use those addresses to number a network, property >remains a bit of a stretch unless you couple it with the right to >exclusivity. Likewise, the right of exclusivity is nonsensical absent the >right to use, so, rather than consider these separately, I'll consider them >together. Remember there was never any deal between Nortel and ARIN, the Nortel counsel specified that before the judge, yet the judge found that Nortel had exclusive transfer rights to addresses for which they were not the original allocant. >As I have said, the registration of an address does not convey the right to >use that address on the internet, nor does it convey the right to exclude >someone else from using that address on the internet. Instead, those rights >are strictly under the control of those running the upstream or peer >routers with which a given organization exchanges datagrams. If you believe >that there is some basis in law for enforcing ARIN's view of these >registrations as a form of rights and inflicting those rights upon 3rd >party network operators, I'd like to see where in the law you believe such >a basis would be created. As I have said, this is merely your opinion as a non-lawyer. Clearly all the power here lies in the hands of the network operators, I have never even seen postulated a right to force 3rd parties to route addresses. >Considering the association between the address and the organization, >namely, the registration in the ARIN database, which is what can be traded >under NRPM 8.3, then, yes, ARIN has stated that there are certain property >rights in this registration and I am inclined to agree. However, the extent >to which such rights exist outside of a contract with ARIN is questionable >at best. Further, the right to force ARIN to update it's database and make >changes to that registration outside of ARIN policy is certainly an >unlikely (at best) extension of any such property rights to force ARIN to >do so. That's a very ARIN-centric view of things. Remember these addresses were allocated before ARIN existed, in an informal manner without contracts. As a legacy holder, I say who cares if ARIN updates Whois? There is a competing registry. The real question is whether network operators will route the addresses, and in my personal opinion they will do so, when presented with chain-of-custody documents. Note I am not saying that any law can force ARIN to update it's database. >> Certainly the right to not-use the addresses, the right to use the >> addresses, and the exclusive right to transfer the addresses were found >> to belong to Nortel, who was not the original allocant of the legacy >> space in question. >I think you mean the exclusive right to transfer the registration, but, >even that right was noted to be limited in scope by ARIN policy. The >integers themselves were not transferred. The registrations associating the >numbers with an organization in the ARIN database were transferred. Owen, did you read Rubi's article? Nothing in the Nortel documents said legally that the right to transfer was limited by ARIN policy. That's wishful thinking. Rather the judge found exclusive right to transfer, and the ARIN/Microsoft deal was a "side agreement" which Nortel, who was the transferer, was not even a party to. You keep implying that a "transfer" is a change in Whois. I am saying a "transfer" is the legal transfer of address rights, which does not imply a Whois change. >> How much further must the rights extend before they meet the test of >> property rights? >First we must define what you are claiming is property. >Owen What I am claiming is property is the exclusive right to use an address block, to not-use an address block, and to transfer those rights under a contract protected by the government. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:33 AM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 > Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources > > The following is strictly my own opinion. IANAL and I did not ask a lawyer > about it. It is not intended as an expression of any opinion of ARIN, the > AC, or anyone other than myself. > > On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Jo, glad to see you back away from the "psychotic" remark. >> >> As for confusion about what property is, it is well accepted among >> political economists that there can be property rights in intangible >> assets. A property right is defined in economics as the right to exclude, >> the right to use and the benefit from the use, and the right to trade or >> assign to others. > > Interesting that you use and in this definition. Since you use and, this > does not, from my perspective, fit IP addresses as the right to exclude > and the right to use are quite unclear even WRT ARIN issued addresses > covered under RSA. > > Yes, there is a de facto tendency to be able to use and to use with at > least some exclusivity. However, neither of those abilities is imbued or > conveyed in the ARIN registration or governed by ARIN policy. Those > abilities are an individual choice of each operator actually controlling > routers and are not universal or in any way under control of ARIN or the > registrant. > >> So to shift slightly to another context, you think that telephone number >> portability plans, which facilitated competition by giving end users a >> property right in their number, allowing them to move them from carrier >> to carrier, was a bad thing? After all, a telephone number "allows you to >> receive [calls] and for others to find you" and thus conforms exactly to >> your definition of an address. > > Telephone numbers were first divorced from the service delivery > topological hierarchy before that was made possible in the telephone > network. No such divorce has yet occurred in IP. As such, the semantics > are necessarily quite different. > > Imagine trying to implement number portability prior to SS7 and you should > get some idea of what this means in an IP context today. > >> By the way, whether the community can take away property rights has >> nothing to do with whether the rights are property rights or whether it >> is a good thing to assign them in the first place. E.g., in certain >> countries tanks claiming the mandate from "the community" can arrive at >> your door and expropriate your land. Doesn't mean your land isn't >> property, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. > > No such property rights as you define them exist. The community neither > gives them nor takes them away because they are fictitious to begin with. > > The community controls policy over how the ARIN databases are updated. To > the extent that legacy holders are effected by the contents of those > databases, they are subject to ARIN policies whether or not they have any > agreement with ARIN. Outside of concerns for what is contained in the ARIN > databases, legacy holders have little or no implications from ARIN policy. > > Fortunately, the internet works because most people that run connected > routers on the largest set of interconnections and interconnected routers > ("the internet") at least so far abide (mostly) by the contents of the > ARIN databases. To the extent that remains true if legacy holders diverge > from the ARIN database, they could have interesting problems getting or > keeping their networks connected with "the internet". > > Owen > > > > >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> I think that this conversation demonstrates some deep confusion over >>> what property is. >>> >>> Property: are those tangible assets that you own. You know, the hardware >>> you use to provide the service on. You bought them. This stuff is not >>> unlike a house, or perhaps one could argue, a mobile home. >>> >>> Address: is that thing you get from the community which allows you to >>> receive mail, and for others to find you. And the community can vote to >>> change it. And does, not often, but perhaps more often than many people >>> expect. >>> >>> I find it totally amusing that "allows you to receive mail, and for >>> others to find you" amazingly sums up both the real uses of physical and >>> IP address ;-) But neither one is owned, and both can be changed or >>> even taken away if the community votes to do so. >>> >>> -- >>> Jo Rhett >>> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet >>> projects. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From cengel at conxeo.com Tue Jun 12 13:06:50 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:06:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of this > discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in a specific > way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN holds rights > over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the proposed > definition because of that. If you are confident that no legacy holders will > ever try to engage in trades outside of ARIN, then you really shouldn't care > about this definition, should you? Actually, if I could interject a fine point on this from an outside spectator and someone who is also not a lawyer. I don't believe that technically ARIN has or even could "hold rights over the exchange" of IP addresses. That would imply that ARIN has the authority to exclude entities that it has no contractual relationship with from use of those addresses and do so across multiple jurisdictions, including those which have no formal legal relationship with the U.S. It's the same reason why I believe IP addresses don't really count as "property" in the traditional sense (as the holder lacks the right or means to exclude others from their use). From a practical sense, that would require ARIN to exercise control over networks, routers, NIC's , etc. that somebody else OWNS and again across multiple jurisdictions. At best, someone might be able to bring a case of torturous interference against someone using an IP address that ARIN officially assigned to someone else. However, even in that case, I believe, there would have to be some reasonable expectation that the end user had a right to access those services over that particular network. That might fly for most transit provider networks, but probably not for the vast majority of end user networks. For example, if as a Private Enterprise End Network, I null routed Facebook's IP address(s) or even routed them to an internal web-server that hosted the corporate policy against accessing social media sites at work, I don't believe either ARIN or Facebook would have effective legal recourse against me doing so. Especially if the contractual agreement that employees signed explicitly indicated the terms of use by which they could utilize our network. It'd be the equivalent of NBC suing me for telling my 9 year old, no TV in the house after 10:00 PM. What, I BELIEVE, ARIN exercises the rights over is listings within their OWN databases. Since most operators consider that the, de facto, registry of record for IP addresses, that has a vast influence over any IP address that you want to be widely accessible through public networks. Even here, I don't believe there is anything that actually compels operators to use ARIN's registry, other then common sense and a desire for smooth interoperability. None of this speaks to what ARIN'S policies SHOULD be toward transfers or legacy addresses. I'm about as libertarian as anybody, but I think the idea of trying to assign private property rights to IP addresses is about as absurd as trying to assign private property rights to the concept of Pi . If it's any sort of "property" it's a very odd and non-standard one, where your ability to limit others use of it applies only under a very narrow range of circumstances. YMMV. Christopher Engel From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 12 13:50:22 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:50:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > Pertinent to this discussion of property rights is Ernesto Rubi (who IS a lawyer)'s > response to the Steve Ryan/Matthew Martel article. > Rubi claims that legacy addresses meet the "basket of rights" test for property. > http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf Noted, but of course, mining rights on a piece of property might also meet a similar test, but are not necessarily transferrable without constraints nor they are the underlying real property itself. Bankruptcy estates can include many items which are "property of the estate", including such intangible items as rights established by contract. > It's fine for us here at the PPML to declare what is and isn't property, but that is just our opinions. Correct. > As has been noted, eventually a judge will decide, and it makes sense for us to anticipate that he will apply timeworn rules as to what is property and what isn't. > Since legacy addresses, post-Nortel, meet the "basket of rights" test and have no written contract attached to them, I think it at least possible that a judge will find that legacy holders have property rights to their blocks. You are assuming quite a bit in the above statements, both in terms of an outcome and presumed implications (but that is your prerogative.) In the meantime, the community should make good policy regarding the management of number resources, and ARIN will implement such policies and defend them as necessary. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 12 14:25:01 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:25:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><0263FA9A-5E46-41EE-8107-E4F8276BB91E@arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <9D6FB616-!2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FBA81C3-5681-4010-8BFF-AFFB6D065E97@delong.com> Message-ID: <85EDA3F0-22EC-471E-980B-4A153A826DB0@delong.com> On Jun 12, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > Hi Owen, > > Responses inline. > > > > On Jun 12, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > >>> Pertinent to this discussion of property rights is Ernesto Rubi (who IS a lawyer)'s response to the Steve Ryan/Matthew Martel article. >> >Rubi claims that legacy addresses meet the "basket of rights" test for >property. >> >> >http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf >> >> >It's fine for us here at the PPML to declare what is and isn't property, >but that is just our opinions. >>> As has been noted, eventually a judge will decide, and it makes sense for us to anticipate that he will apply timeworn rules as to what is property and what isn't. >> >Since legacy addresses, post-Nortel, meet the "basket of rights" test >and have no written contract attached to them, I think it at least >possible that a judge will find that legacy holders have property rights >to their blocks. >> > >> What, exactly, do you mean by "their blocks"? > >> Do you mean the addresses themselves? > >> Do you mean the right to use those addresses to number a network? > >> Do you mean the right to exclusivity from others using those addresses to number a network? > >> Do you mean the registration of the association between the address numbers and the organization in the ARIN database? > >> Do you mean some combination of these things? > > I mean the address blocks for which they have a chain-of-custody from themselves back to the original allocant, for which they have the exclusive right to use, to not-use, and to transfer. By transfer I mean sell for value, I do not mean ARIN changing a record in the Whois database. I am not saying they have the right to registration in the ARIN database. This involves a series of assertions which are arguably false... Namely: 1. That the original registrant had some right to transfer the blocks to them. 2. That they have the exclusive right to use. 3. That they have a right to not use and yet retain control of the addresses. Certainly they have the exclusive right to use or not use the addresses within their network, but, the question is whether or not that creates an obligation for ARIN to maintain an entry associating those addresses with them (or their predecessor) in the ARIN database and/or for ARIN to update that registration. Does it create an obligation for ARIN to avoid creating a conflicting registration in the ARIN database? If they do not have a right to registration in the ARIN database, how would they have a right to preclude a conflicting registration in the ARIN database? Indeed, absent a contract with ARIN, how can they exert any control whatsoever on the contents of the ARIN database? Moving beyond the question of how they interact with ARIN, however, how does that "exclusive right to use or not use" the addresses extend to affect other network operators with whom they also do not have a contract? In short, where did these "exclusive rights" come from and under what law or contract are they governed? >> Addresses themselves do not have or convey any rights. They are merely integers and whether it's an IP address or a credit card number or an accounting term or a building number is strictly a matter of the context in which it is used. As such, I cannot imagine a property right here. > > I'm not talking about the addresses, but rather the address rights, which were conveyed with the original allocation from an agency working under some contractual relationship with the US government. These rights have passed from party to party on innumerable contracts. ARIN is the successor registry to those contracts and ARIN policies do apply to all such registrations. No rights were conveyed with the original allocations, but, rather a registration for uniqueness among cooperating parties was conveyed. If you have documentation or supporting law or contract to assert or prove otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing that. >> In terms of the right to use those addresses to number a network, property remains a bit of a stretch unless you couple it with the right to exclusivity. Likewise, the right of exclusivity is nonsensical absent the right to use, so, rather than consider these separately, I'll consider them together. > > Remember there was never any deal between Nortel and ARIN, the Nortel counsel specified that before the judge, yet the judge found that Nortel had exclusive transfer rights to addresses for which they were not the original allocant. Nortel obtained the addresses through transactions that would qualify under 8.2. Therefore, even though Nortel had no deal with ARIN, Nortel did acquire the addresses within ARIN policies. >> As I have said, the registration of an address does not convey the right to use that address on the internet, nor does it convey the right to exclude someone else from using that address on the internet. Instead, those rights are strictly under the control of those running the upstream or peer routers with which a given organization exchanges datagrams. If you believe that there is some basis in law for enforcing ARIN's view of these registrations as a form of rights and inflicting those rights upon 3rd party network operators, I'd like to see where in the law you believe such a basis would be created. > > As I have said, this is merely your opinion as a non-lawyer. Clearly all the power here lies in the hands of the network operators, I have never even seen postulated a right to force 3rd parties to route addresses. Then what do you mean by an "exclusive right to use"? If you can't force 3rd-party network operators to route or not route the addresses for you or for another party, how is your right of exclusive usage defined? You're saying this is merely my opinion as a non-lawyer, yet you state that it is clearly true in your own second sentence. >> Considering the association between the address and the organization, namely, the registration in the ARIN database, which is what can be traded under NRPM 8.3, then, yes, ARIN has stated that there are certain property rights in this registration and I am inclined to agree. However, the extent to which such rights exist outside of a contract with ARIN is questionable at best. Further, the right to force ARIN to update it's database and make changes to that registration outside of ARIN policy is certainly an unlikely (at best) extension of any such property rights to force ARIN to do so. > > That's a very ARIN-centric view of things. Remember these addresses were allocated before ARIN existed, in an informal manner without contracts. As a legacy holder, I say who cares if ARIN updates Whois? There is a competing registry. The real question is whether network operators will route the addresses, and in my personal opinion they will do so, when presented with chain-of-custody documents. Note I am not saying that any law can force ARIN to update it's database. IMHO, such routing will remain the exception and when a network operator is faced with conflicting data between your chain of custody/alternate registry vs. what ARIN says in the ARIN database, likely most, if not all operators will go with what is in the RIR database. So long as there is no conflict, I believe you can get certain ISPs to route just about anything. The real question is what happens when ARIN not only doesn't update, but, drops your registration from the database and subsequently issues a conflicting registration to another party. (Note, I'm not advocating ARIN take such an action, but, if you want to talk about property rights, then it really boils down to your ability to preclude ARIN from doing just that). >>> Certainly the right to not-use the addresses, the right to use the addresses, and the exclusive right to transfer the addresses were found to belong to Nortel, who was not the original allocant of the legacy space in question. > >> I think you mean the exclusive right to transfer the registration, but, even that right was noted to be limited in scope by ARIN policy. The integers themselves were not transferred. The registrations associating the numbers with an organization in the ARIN database were transferred. > > Owen, did you read Rubi's article? Nothing in the Nortel documents said legally that the right to transfer was limited by ARIN policy. That's wishful thinking. Rather the judge found exclusive right to transfer, and the ARIN/Microsoft deal was a "side agreement" which Nortel, who was the transferer, was not even a party to. You keep implying that a "transfer" is a change in Whois. I am saying a "transfer" is the legal transfer of address rights, which does not imply a Whois change. But you have still failed to define what "address rights" actually are. You've said that they don't involve the ability to compel behavior of third parties, so, what, exactly are these rights to which you refer? The right to transfer the right to transfer? That seems rather meaningless to me. > >>> How much further must the rights extend before they meet the test of property rights? > >> First we must define what you are claiming is property. > >> Owen > > What I am claiming is property is the exclusive right to use an address block, to not-use an address block, and to transfer those rights under a contract protected by the government. 1. What contract protected by the government? 2. What right to use? Does your right to use 5 preclude my right to use 5? 3. Right not to use? Are you claiming that addresses are not subject to reclamation[1] for insufficient utilization? I think that is only true if the resources are covered by an LRSA which states that. Again, absent the ability to compel third-party behavior (which you have acknowledged does not exist), in what way are 2 and 3 meaningful? [1] reclamation = removing the allocation from the ARIN database and creating the possibility for ARIN to issue a registration of those particular numbers to a third party and/or pass those numbers back to the IANA pool of available addresses. Owen From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 12 14:32:26 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:32:26 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21879AE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Engel [mailto:cengel at conxeo.com] > spectator and someone who is also not a lawyer. I don't believe that > technically ARIN has or even could "hold rights over the exchange" of IP > addresses. That would imply that ARIN has the authority to exclude > entities that it has no contractual relationship with from use of those > addresses and do so across multiple jurisdictions, including those which [Milton L Mueller] Thank you. Simple, reasonable and correct point. > It's the same reason > why I believe IP addresses don't really count as "property" in the > traditional sense (as the holder lacks the right or means to exclude > others from their use). [Milton L Mueller] OK, but exclusivity exists in the same sense and for the same reasons that exclusivity exists in the occupation of a movie theater chair. If I am already sitting in a chair it causes trouble for both of us for you to come and sit in it. (conflict) In most cases it causes more trouble than to go and sit in another chair. I may have no legal right to that seat (my ticket may not be seat-specific) but most people will avoid conflicting claims for practical reasons. However, when seats get really scarce (as they are, e.g., in a Hong Kong movie theater as opposed to a Syracuse one) ticket sales get tied to exclusive, defined seat assignments. Viz, my earlier point about "propertization." If the word 'property rights' frightens you, call it something else, such as "scarcity-intensified exclusivity" > From a practical sense, that would require ARIN > to exercise control over networks, routers, NIC's , etc. that somebody > else OWNS and again across multiple jurisdictions. [Milton L Mueller] which we both seem to agree would be a Bad Thing > At best, someone might be able to bring a case of torturous interference [Milton L Mueller] tortious. This thread is approaching the torturous, however, so perhaps the pun was intended. > against someone using an IP address that ARIN officially assigned to > someone else. However, even in that case, I believe, there would have > to be some reasonable expectation that the end user had a right to > access those services over that particular network. That might fly for > most transit provider networks, but probably not for the vast majority > of end user networks. For example, if as a Private Enterprise End > Network, I null routed Facebook's IP address(s) or even routed them to > an internal web-server that hosted the corporate policy against > accessing social media sites at work, I don't believe either ARIN or > Facebook would have effective legal recourse against me doing so. [Milton L Mueller] interesting point. But it is the routing right you are discussing, not the exclusivity of address assignments for the public internet. And I believe that even Owen "Chairman Mao" DeLong believes that operators have private property rights over the instructions of their routers. > What, I BELIEVE, ARIN exercises the rights over is listings within their > OWN databases. Since most operators consider that the, de facto, > registry of record for IP addresses, that has a vast influence over any > IP address that you want to be widely accessible through public > networks. Even here, I don't believe there is anything that actually > compels operators to use ARIN's registry, other then common sense and a > desire for smooth interoperability. [Milton L Mueller] I think you are trying to say that ARIN _owns_ the registry database; i.e., has exclusive authority over what goes into and out of it? Wink wink, nudge nudge > None of this speaks to what ARIN'S policies SHOULD be toward transfers > or legacy addresses. [Milton L Mueller] Correct! The attempt to come up with a clear definition of legacy has been hijacked by the foaming at the mouth caused by the conjunction of "IP addresses" with the word "property" From mike at nationwideinc.com Tue Jun 12 14:43:39 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:43:39 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacyresources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8042EE555D9C46B899DA34B96900A630@MPC> >Noted, but of course, mining rights on a piece of property might also meet >a similar test, but are not necessarily transferrable without constraints But in the Nortel case the judge held that addresses were transferred from Bay Networks to Nortel without any apparent constraint. (Or whomever the original allocant was.) >nor they are the underlying real property itself. Bankruptcy estates can >include many items which are "property of the estate", including such intangible items as rights established by contract. Of course address rights are not real property and bankruptcy estates can include intangible assets. >> As has been noted, eventually a judge will decide, and it makes sense for >> us to anticipate that he will apply timeworn rules as to what is property >> and what isn't. >> Since legacy addresses, post-Nortel, meet the "basket of rights" test >> and have no written contract attached to them, I think it at least >> possible that a judge will find that legacy holders have property rights >> to their blocks. >You are assuming quite a bit in the above statements, both in terms of an >outcome and presumed implications (but that is your prerogative.) What is my assumption, that a judge will decide? You said as much yourself. That a judge will use the available precedent of property law when making the decision? Judges have had to decide these kinds of questions from antiquity, I think they are likely to apply standard (timeworn) tests like "basket of rights". That there is no written contract? Clearly there is not. So that leaves my assumption that legacy address rights meet the "basket of rights" test. Can you tell me how they do not? And my presumed implication? That I "think it at least possible" that a judge could find property rights? I am asking the ARIN community to consider the course of least legal resistance to be the course of soundest stewardship. The context of this discussion should include some understanding of the law, and I think Rubi's article, read in response to Ryan's, helps to provide that. >In the meantime, the community should make good policy regarding the management of number resources, and ARIN will implement such policies and defend them as necessary. >Thanks! >/John Agreed. Mike From mike at nationwideinc.com Tue Jun 12 15:16:25 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:16:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources In-Reply-To: <85EDA3F0-22EC-471E-980B-4A153A826DB0@delong.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01><817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net><"E3EE76FD-9243-4D8D-8832-0D3EAAD5759C"@netconsonance.com><620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video><30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA@corp.arin.net><4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <9D6FB616-!2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FBA81C3-5681-4010-8BFF-AFFB6D065E97@delong.com> <85EDA3F0-22EC-471E-980B-4A153A826DB0@delong.com> Message-ID: <64F5C32D8F36484A9D6DAE8CD63E37DD@MPC> >>> I mean the address blocks for which they have a chain-of-custody from >>> themselves back to the original allocant, for which they have the >>> exclusive right to use, to not-use, and to transfer. By transfer I mean >>> sell for value, I do not mean ARIN changing a record in the Whois >>> database. I am not saying they have the right to registration in the >>> ARIN database. >This involves a series of assertions which are arguably false... >Namely: >1. That the original registrant had some right to transfer the blocks to >them. Nortel was found to have exclusive right to transfer addresses allocated to another company, say Bay Networks, which was acquired by Nortel. So presumably Bay Networks, the original registrant, had some right to transfer blocks to Nortel without ARIN's involvement. From the judge's order: ??The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers." >2. That they have the exclusive right to use. Again from the judge :??The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers." >3. That they have a right to not use and yet retain control of the >addresses. Addresses are being sold out of bankruptcy, I think it likely that many of them are not being used. >Certainly they have the exclusive right to use or not use the addresses >within their network, but, the question is whether or not that creates an >obligation for ARIN to maintain an entry associating those addresses with >them (or their predecessor) in the ARIN database and/or for ARIN to update >that registration. Does it create an obligation for ARIN to avoid creating >a conflicting registration in the ARIN database? No legal obligation, just our obligation as good stewards, IMO. >If they do not have a right to registration in the ARIN database, how would >they have a right to preclude a conflicting registration in the ARIN >database? Indeed, absent a contract with ARIN, how can they exert any >control whatsoever on the contents of the ARIN database? Owen, they cannot exert any control over the ARIN database, IMO. >Moving beyond the question of how they interact with ARIN, however, how >does that "exclusive right to use or not use" the addresses extend to >affect other network operators with whom they also do not have a contract? >In short, where did these "exclusive rights" come from and under what law >or contract are they governed? For now, they seem to be governed by the judge's order and language in Nortel/Microsoft. >ARIN is the successor registry to those contracts and ARIN policies do >apply to all such registrations. No rights were conveyed with the original >allocations, but, rather a registration for uniqueness among cooperating >parties was conveyed. If you have documentation or supporting law or >contract to assert or prove otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing >that. If ARIN policies apply to legacy registrations, why did ARIN's CEO claim otherwise, as quoted in http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf ? And where is your documentation or supporting law to assert that ARIN's post-hoc policies apply to legacy addresses? As far a my documentation or case law, I say read again http://addrex.net/documents/2012/03/carey-rodriguez-internet-protocol-article-030112.pdf This is the considered conclusion of two lawyers who have studied this issue: Bankruptcy trustees and debtors? counsel (and for that matter, creditors? counsel) should be wary of advice which encourages them to ??avoid references to the estate?s ?ownership? of the IP Numbers. . .?? ? an assertion incompatible both with case law and the real world experience of major industry players. Private and public actors alike agree that IPv4 numbers have enormous present value. The recent case of In re Nortel only further cements that point, and provides helpful insight to the market mechanisms and pricing of IPv4 Numbers. The age of property rights in IPv4 numbers has undoubtedly arrived. >So long as there is no conflict, I believe you can get certain ISPs to >route just about anything. You are right about that, and right about the observation that this won't really boil until ARIN takes the plunge of reissuing numbers to some poor sap. Mike From tvest at eyeconomics.com Tue Jun 12 16:08:25 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:08:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8EE5D408-CDD3-45EF-AA82-2F7361FD6A1E@eyeconomics.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8EE5D408-CDD3-45EF-AA82-2F7361FD6A1E@eyeconomics.com> Message-ID: <2F7A2B1C-FC98-457C-95F8-423D2E436E35@eyeconomics.com> I stand corrected (see below)... On Jun 12, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Tom Vest wrote: > On Jun 12, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] >>> no sir, it is not directly parallel. community assigned holdership takes >>> the place of securities law in your example. therefore the ability and >>> methods of resource trading are a matter to be determined by the same >>> community who would decide whether to recognize those trades. >> >> [Milton L Mueller] you are again missing the point, or we are talking past each other. >> The issue is not what law applies. The issue is whether multiple entities (brokers and registries) can coordinate resources that are traded. You argued in your ACM piece that "physics" prevented it. The CUSIP example proves you wrong. > > Hi Milton, > > It's nice to see that you've been giving more thought to the parallels between the Internet operations and monetary/financial industrial sectors ;-) > Unfortunately, you're completely off base with this particular parallel. > > Are you suggesting that, of the several virtues that an Internet protocol number resource allocation regime might or might not possess, the capacity for "coordination of resources" *that are in the process of being traded* is more important than the capacity for reliable/predictable *use* of such resources when they are *not* in the process of being traded? > After all, IP addresses are not financial instruments. The financial instruments for which CUSIP was developed derive exactly 0.00% of their value/functionality from non-trading related functions, whereas the exact opposite is true for Internet protocol number resources. While anything may be traded "in theory," in practice not all markets are self-sustaining, and not all self-sustaining markets are net beneficial -- even within the domain where CUSIP actually has operational relevance. > > Granted, the financial sector still seems to be quite comfortable with their mechanisms for "coordination of resources that are traded." This is not entirely true; some financial sector decision makers are not, in fact, comfortable with existing mechanisms for coordination "resources that are traded" --- up to and including CUSIP (which is "used primarily in the United States and Canada"). In fact, some are advocating what is, effectively, an RIR-style standardized registry for financial market participants! http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1723298 According to the (FRB NY) authors, the key features that such a registry should embody include: -- Open (i.e., "voluntary consensus") standards-based -- Singularity and (perpetual) uniqueness of registrant identity:identifier relationships -- Persistent and neutral accessibility of registration services and registration data to all market participants and interested parties -- Extensibility -- Reliability and interoperability -- (Qualified) incentive compatibility (i.e., "Some degree of compulsion may be necessary to start the process [or universal registration], but every effort should be made to involve players in such a way that everyone has a vested interest in [the registry's] continuation." The authors consider the feasibility and merits of public sector-led, private sector-led, and mixed implementation scenarios, but (perhaps predictably) suggest that, given the immense start-up costs involved and the dim prospects of a spontaneous global industry-wide convergence to a common standard, scenarios involving a mixed "private sector solution with public sector involvement" are most likely to lead to the emergence of an effective universal financial sector "entity identifier." Too bad for the bankers (and in a real sense, for the rest of us) that they didn't inherit such a system, or the "voluntary consensus"-based standards and decision-making mechanisms that make it possible to sustain such an arrangement as time and circumstances change. I wonder how how much time, effort, and money it will take to create such a system from scratch -- assuming that it's even possible in the existing (opaque, accountability-defying) financial industry environment? Food for thought, esp. for those who are tempted to "discount" the uniqueness and value of our current coordination mechanisms. TV > But then the members of that industry seem to enjoy de facto blanket impunity from any adverse results arising from such trades, while retaining 100% of the upside. > > I doubt that the same will be true in our case, though it seems that some are quite eager to find out. > > Regards, > > TV > >>>>> i think you "simply" need to stop thinking about ip addresses as >>>>> assets having titles which can be traded, and focus your energies on >>>>> studying >>>> [Milton L Mueller] but they _can_ be traded, and _are_ being traded. >>> And RSAs and Whois registrations are nothing if not "titles." Is this >>> dialogue moving backwards to 2005? >>> >>> i've been told by several operators that they are aware of or engaging >>> in underground optioning of rights, in order to lay in a long term >>> supply of growth capacity for their ipv4 networks. each of them plans to >>> execute NRPM 8.3 trades when they can justify each tranche they have >>> options on. none of them has told me that they need a new registry >>> without ARIN's "needs basis" in order to run their businesses. if so, >> >> [Milton L Mueller] That's interesting, and that's fine by me and apparently by you. If indeed you are speaking for every single legacy holder, which I doubt, there will be no need to quarrel about this issue, because there will be no need for ARIN to try to force them to trade via its own process by threatening to de-list the transferred blocks. If you are not right....? >> >>> if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which >>> reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use >>> address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all >>> ears, please regale me. >> >> [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that. If you are confident that no legacy holders will ever try to engage in trades outside of ARIN, then you really shouldn't care about this definition, should you? >> >>> at this moment the only >>> people i know of who want what dr. mueller is calling "propertization" >>> are speculators, not operators. >> >> [Milton L Mueller] I am quite confident that this is incorrect. last time I looked the proponent of this prop-172 was an operator (Marty) as well as some of its supporters. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From cengel at conxeo.com Tue Jun 12 16:39:41 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:39:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21879AE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21879AE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > [Milton L Mueller] OK, but exclusivity exists in the same sense and for the > same reasons that exclusivity exists in the occupation of a movie theater > chair. If I am already sitting in a chair it causes trouble for both of us for you to > come and sit in it. (conflict) In most cases it causes more trouble than to go > and sit in another chair. I may have no legal right to that seat (my ticket may > not be seat-specific) but most people will avoid conflicting claims for practical > reasons. However, when seats get really scarce (as they are, e.g., in a Hong > Kong movie theater as opposed to a Syracuse one) ticket sales get tied to > exclusive, defined seat assignments. Viz, my earlier point about > "propertization." If the word 'property rights' frightens you, call it something > else, such as "scarcity-intensified exclusivity" Professor Mueller, Thank your for your courteous response. I think this is where a bit of my disconnect lies with the concept being promulgated. The movie theater chair is a finite location in a finite space. This does not necessary hold true for an IP Address. An IP address may be a finite location but it can exist in a potentially INFINITE number of spaces. ANY number of people can potentially occupy that chair as long as they do so within their own context. Indeed, as long as the context is understood, you and I can BOTH sit in the same chair without conflict. That's why you could have a device which resides at 10.1.1.1 (an RFC 1918 address) on your network and so could I and no conflict exists between the two as long we have some means of recognizing the context in which the address resides. In that sense, one might consider an IP address to be a movie theatre chair which exists within an infinite number of parallel universes where one can spawn ones own parallel universe at any point in time. It's only when you ask the question, "Who's sitting in that chair?" without being able to reference the context of the question that the potential for conflict exists. The answer, of course, depends upon who you choose to use as a reference. ARIN (and the other RIR's) are ONE source for a reference and the de facto one that MOST operators tend to utilize to answer MOST queries. It is important to note that nothing actually compels any given operator to use ARIN for every or ANY given query and some occasionally don't. ARIN only is able to act as the de facto reference for such queries because it provides a high degree of utility for most operators to generally choose to do so. If ARIN, for some reason, ceased to provide such a high degree of utility.... if for example it operated in a fashion contrary to what most operators considered useful, it would cease to have influence as reference source. I think the concept might have a bit more traction with me if there was, in practical reality, such a thing as a homogenous "public internet". The reality seems to me a good bit more complex and the internet is a much more amorphous and heterogeneous entity then the model would suggest. It consists of a vast and ever changing array of autonomous and semi-autonomous networks run by a wide variety of public and private entities. Some of these networks are public, others private, semi-private, partially private, etc. all of which are connected to each other in a variety of complex ways and even includes networks operated by entities which don't recognize each others legal existence (i.e. China & Taiwan). I think the crux of the matter lies in the answer to 2 questions..... Can ARIN be compelled to update databases which it OWNS in a manner contrary to what it perceives as the interests of the constituency which it serves? Can a vast array of private operators be compelled to utilize ARIN as an authoritative reference for queries that they find fundamentally against their interests to resolve in that manner? Including operators in jurisdictions that may not even recognize the legal existence of the authority seeking to compel them? Unless the answer to both those questions is "YES", I'm not sure how the property-rights model could usefully apply to IP Addresses. Even if the answer to the above is "YES", does the internet continue to function in a reasonably useful function? I don't often find myself agreeing with Owen on alot of issues, but in this case what he's saying makes alot of sense to me. ARIN, pending contractual agreements it's made, should have the right to update it's own listings according to it's own policies. If it starts updating it's listings in a manner contrary to the interests of the vast majority of the entities utilizing it, as a practical matter it's utility as a reference source becomes vastly reduced....hence not a good idea for it to do so...or for most entities to try to compel it to do so...and I think most entities involved actually recognize that. I think that also speaks to the other point which has been raised. Most entities seeking title to something aren't going to be interested in delegitimizing the authority of the Title Office that they are seeking to have recognize their claim by their actions, as it devalues the claim itself. Thus I strongly suspect entities will seek to work within ARIN's policies in conducting transfers, if at all possible as it is self-defeating for them not to do so. Conversely, I also suspect that ARIN will generally try to find a way to work with the entities seeking transfer to allow that to happen within policy if it is at all possible to do so. It's only when it's very clearly against the interests of the constituency which ARIN serves would it make sense for ARIN to do otherwise. YMMV. Christopher Engel > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:32 PM > To: Chris Engel > Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net' > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Engel [mailto:cengel at conxeo.com] > > spectator and someone who is also not a lawyer. I don't believe that > > technically ARIN has or even could "hold rights over the exchange" of IP > > addresses. That would imply that ARIN has the authority to exclude > > entities that it has no contractual relationship with from use of those > > addresses and do so across multiple jurisdictions, including those which > > [Milton L Mueller] Thank you. Simple, reasonable and correct point. > > > It's the same reason > > why I believe IP addresses don't really count as "property" in the > > traditional sense (as the holder lacks the right or means to exclude > > others from their use). > > [Milton L Mueller] OK, but exclusivity exists in the same sense and for the > same reasons that exclusivity exists in the occupation of a movie theater > chair. If I am already sitting in a chair it causes trouble for both of us for you to > come and sit in it. (conflict) In most cases it causes more trouble than to go > and sit in another chair. I may have no legal right to that seat (my ticket may > not be seat-specific) but most people will avoid conflicting claims for practical > reasons. However, when seats get really scarce (as they are, e.g., in a Hong > Kong movie theater as opposed to a Syracuse one) ticket sales get tied to > exclusive, defined seat assignments. Viz, my earlier point about > "propertization." If the word 'property rights' frightens you, call it something > else, such as "scarcity-intensified exclusivity" > > > From a practical sense, that would require ARIN > > to exercise control over networks, routers, NIC's , etc. that somebody > > else OWNS and again across multiple jurisdictions. > > [Milton L Mueller] which we both seem to agree would be a Bad Thing > > > At best, someone might be able to bring a case of torturous interference > > [Milton L Mueller] tortious. This thread is approaching the > torturous, however, so perhaps the pun was intended. > > > against someone using an IP address that ARIN officially assigned to > > someone else. However, even in that case, I believe, there would have > > to be some reasonable expectation that the end user had a right to > > access those services over that particular network. That might fly for > > most transit provider networks, but probably not for the vast majority > > of end user networks. For example, if as a Private Enterprise End > > Network, I null routed Facebook's IP address(s) or even routed them to > > an internal web-server that hosted the corporate policy against > > accessing social media sites at work, I don't believe either ARIN or > > Facebook would have effective legal recourse against me doing so. > > [Milton L Mueller] interesting point. But it is the routing right you are > discussing, not the exclusivity of address assignments for the public internet. > And I believe that even Owen "Chairman Mao" DeLong believes that > operators have private property rights over the instructions of their routers. > > > What, I BELIEVE, ARIN exercises the rights over is listings within their > > OWN databases. Since most operators consider that the, de facto, > > registry of record for IP addresses, that has a vast influence over any > > IP address that you want to be widely accessible through public > > networks. Even here, I don't believe there is anything that actually > > compels operators to use ARIN's registry, other then common sense and a > > desire for smooth interoperability. > > [Milton L Mueller] I think you are trying to say that ARIN _owns_ the registry > database; i.e., has exclusive authority over what goes into and out of it? Wink > wink, nudge nudge > > > None of this speaks to what ARIN'S policies SHOULD be toward transfers > > or legacy addresses. > > [Milton L Mueller] Correct! The attempt to come up with a clear definition of > legacy has been hijacked by the foaming at the mouth caused by the > conjunction of "IP addresses" with the word "property" > > From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 18:38:03 2012 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:38:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources (John Santos) Message-ID: Having followed the list discussion thus far, I am totally opposed to this proposal 172 ....and with reference to John Santos' remarks below .*"See the template we needed to fill out in order to receive our initial legacy assignment back in the early 1990s"*.........Maybe John should digitize the template. Rudi Daniel > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org] > > > > > if you're aware of "trades" which are not futures or options, and which > > > reflect the extant desire of some operators to put into active use > > > address resources whose need they cannot currently justify, i'm all > > > ears, please regale me. > > > > [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context of > > this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy resources in > > a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have insisted that ARIN > > holds rights over the exchange of those resources and are rejecting the > > proposed definition because of that. > > This is a strawman. That is not the only or even the common reason why > at least some people oppose this proposal. 1) It codifies practices and > applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous > practice, in that requires a written agreement. 2) It extends the scope > ot "legacy" status well beyond the current de facto situation. 3) It > ignores that despite the lack or a written RSA, there was an understanding > between ARIN's predecessors and address holders that the addresses were > to be used for network numbering and management, were issued on a needs > basis, and were to be returned or reallocated if the holder's needs > changed. See the template we needed to fill out in order to receive our > initial legacy assignment back in the early 1990s. (I only have this on > paper so can't link to it.) > > The "definition" in this proposal is actually policy in sheep's clothing. > > Opposed. > > -- > John Santos > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > 781-861-0670 ext 539 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:51:33 +0000 > From: Milton L Mueller > To: Jo Rhett , "arin-ppml at arin.net" > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section > 8.4Modifications:ASNandlegacy resources > Message-ID: > <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Jo, glad to see you back away from the "psychotic" remark. > > As for confusion about what property is, it is well accepted among > political economists that there can be property rights in intangible > assets. A property right is defined in economics as the right to exclude, > the right to use and the benefit from the use, and the right to trade or > assign to others. > > So to shift slightly to another context, you think that telephone number > portability plans, which facilitated competition by giving end users a > property right in their number, allowing them to move them from carrier to > carrier, was a bad thing? After all, a telephone number "allows you to > receive [calls] and for others to find you" and thus conforms exactly to > your definition of an address. > > By the way, whether the community can take away property rights has > nothing to do with whether the rights are property rights or whether it is > a good thing to assign them in the first place. E.g., in certain countries > tanks claiming the mandate from "the community" can arrive at your door and > expropriate your land. Doesn't mean your land isn't property, doesn't mean > it's the right thing to do. > > > -----Original Message----- > > I think that this conversation demonstrates some deep confusion over > > what property is. > > > > Property: are those tangible assets that you own. You know, the hardware > > you use to provide the service on. You bought them. This stuff is not > > unlike a house, or perhaps one could argue, a mobile home. > > > > Address: is that thing you get from the community which allows you to > > receive mail, and for others to find you. And the community can vote to > > change it. And does, not often, but perhaps more often than many people > > expect. > > > > I find it totally amusing that "allows you to receive mail, and for > > others to find you" amazingly sums up both the real uses of physical and > > IP address ;-) But neither one is owned, and both can be changed or > > even taken away if the community votes to do so. > > > > -- > > Jo Rhett > > Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet > > projects. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:54:39 +0000 > From: Milton L Mueller > To: John Santos > Cc: "'arin-ppml at arin.net'" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > Message-ID: > <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218776E at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > [Milton L Mueller] See above. I guess you have forgotten the context > > > of this discussion. There is a policy proposal to define legacy > > > resources in a specific way. Opponents of this new definition have > > > insisted that ARIN holds rights over the exchange of those resources > > > and are rejecting the proposed definition because of that. > > > > This is a strawman. That is not the only or even the common reason why > > at least some people oppose this proposal. 1) It codifies practices and > > applies retroactively in a way inconsistant with current and previous > > practice, in that requires a written agreement. > > [Milton L Mueller] huh? ARIN has no authority other than its written > agreements. > > > 2) It extends the scope > > ot "legacy" status well beyond the current de facto situation. > > [Milton L Mueller] debatable. > > > 3) It ignores that despite the lack or a written RSA, there was an > > understanding between ARIN's predecessors and address holders that the > > addresses were to be used for network numbering and management, were > > issued on a needs basis, and were to be returned or reallocated if the > > holder's needs changed. > > [Milton L Mueller] utterly false, factually. The legacy allocations made > in the 1980s did not carry any such implications, you are reading current > policies and obligations backwards into history. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > ARIN-PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 31 > ***************************************** > -- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting ** * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 12 21:22:41 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:22:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21879AE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > Thank your for your courteous response. [Milton L Mueller] There is really less disagreement here than meets the eye. > I think this is where a bit of > my disconnect lies with the concept being promulgated. The movie theater > chair is a finite location in a finite space. This does not necessary > hold true for an IP Address. An IP address may be a finite location but > it can exist in a potentially INFINITE number of spaces. ANY number of > people can potentially occupy that chair as long as they do so within > their own context. Indeed, as long as the context is understood, you and > I can BOTH sit in the same chair without conflict. That's why you could [Milton L Mueller] Sure, every economically valuable resource has what economists call different "technical characteristics." So the particular form taken by scarcity in movie theater seats is different from that taken by IP addresses. But the theater seat is also not as scarce as it may seem, because if you occupy the seat at 3 pm to see Toy Story I can occupy it again at 5 pm for the next showing, and Owen can sit in the same seat for the 7 pm showing. And maybe if demand gets intense the theater owner invests a bunch of $$ and adds seats to the hall, or buys special seats that adapt to the size of the people in them and thus make room for more seats. Yeah, it is possible to overcome resource conflicts in any number of creative ways. > It's only when you ask the question, "Who's sitting in that chair?" > without being able to reference the context of the question that the > potential for conflict exists. The answer, of course, depends upon who > you choose to use as a reference. ARIN (and the other RIR's) are ONE > source for a reference and the de facto one that MOST operators tend to > utilize to answer MOST queries. It is important to note that nothing > actually compels any given operator to use ARIN for every or ANY given > query and some occasionally don't. ARIN only is able to act as the de > facto reference for such queries because it provides a high degree of > utility for most operators to generally choose to do so. [Milton L Mueller] Right. Exactly! I think we are on the right track here. > If ARIN, for > some reason, ceased to provide such a high degree of utility.... if for > example it operated in a fashion contrary to what most operators > considered useful, it would cease to have influence as reference source. [Milton L Mueller] Yep. And believe it or not, that is basically the same point I was trying to make with respect to ARIN trying to use its control of the registry database in a way that is perceived to be (or is in fact) contrary to the interests of a coalition of legacy holders, operators who want to communicate with them, brokers, and others. Really, that was all I was pointing out. If ARIN wants to be the authoritative, universal reference it can't play fast and loose with the power that comes with people using it for that purpose. Perhaps the only point where we differ is that I believe it is advisable for ARIN and other RIRs to concentrate almost exclusively on the registry function and pave the way for competition and diversity in post-allocation services, which means that they should be open to figuring out a way to interact with other registrars, and that means being totally devoted to actually listing who uniquely holds an address block and not making that listing contingent upon maintaining control of various things or conformity to ancillary policies. You ask two important questions: 1. > Can ARIN be compelled to update databases which it OWNS in a manner > contrary to what it perceives as the interests of the constituency which > it serves? [Milton L Mueller] Do you really mean 'can' it be? If so, yes, with appropriate changes in U.S. law or ICANN rules, ARIN _can_ be so compelled. But I don't think anyone here is advocating that ARIN should be compelled to do so by some external force. I think people are saying - within this process - that it would be good policy to do so, and that ARIN _should_ adopt such a policy. And they are warning that ARIN might get itself, or the internet, in trouble if it tries to tie such listings arbitrarily to other things. 2. > Can a vast array of private operators be compelled to utilize ARIN as an > authoritative reference for queries that they find fundamentally against > their interests to resolve in that manner? Including operators in > jurisdictions that may not even recognize the legal existence of the > authority seeking to compel them? [Milton L Mueller] Absolutely not. The question answers itself. > Unless the answer to both those questions is "YES", I'm not sure how the > property-rights model could usefully apply to IP Addresses. [Milton L Mueller] Huh? The property rights model already is applicable and operational wherever there are transfer policies in force. It is a way to facilitate the transfer of addresses in response to market conditions. All we are debating, really, is whether legacy holders who make trades outside of ARIN's process, or who insist on remaining at arms-length to ARIN, will be recognized in its listing. Actually we are not even debating that, we are debating the definition of legacy resources. It is a mistake to make this a debate about the applicability of the property rights model. That battle is over! > I don't often find myself agreeing with Owen on alot of issues, but in > this case what he's saying makes alot of sense to me. ARIN, pending > contractual agreements it's made, should have the right to update it's > own listings according to it's own policies. If it starts updating it's [Milton L Mueller] Again, I thought we were debating what ARIN policy should be, not whether ARIN should follow its own policies. Correct me if I am wrong. Put differently, you don't justify the rejection of a proposed ARIN policy by reiterating that ARIN has the right to follow its own policies. The real debate is about what the policy should be! As long as people are working within the ARIN process to change the policy, they are recognizing that ARIN's actions are guided by its own policies. --MM From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 13 00:04:59 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 04:04:59 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <64F5C32D8F36484A9D6DAE8CD63E37DD@MPC> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDC2F@lb3ex01> <817AE167-EEB9-4EDE-B420-2D93F9DF3FBB@corp.arin.net> <"CAP-guGXtXN_xXzYKKWmGYioQL=e0qZS69MEE85_2ie=an 8PWTw"@mail.gmail.com> <620A745EE9B94A3B8418D652B32AAA77@video> <"30F518B B-BAAF-41B1-8BE5-5BBAA8B085BA"@corp.arin.net> <4F0705A6-1F47-45AA-ACBF-B81443A51F6A@arin.net> <97EDADC9F09649B0B57FBB3718B1BD5A@MPC> <9D6FB616-!2629-443C-AD36-5F346FDA1ED0@netconsonance.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187731@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FBA81C3-5681-4010-8BFF-AFFB6D065E97@delong.com> <85EDA3F0-22EC-471E-980B-4A153A826DB0@delong.com> <64F5C32D8F36484A9D6DAE8CD63E37DD@MPC> Message-ID: <3EB0A472-6D92-4123-B4E0-4520D22F005F@corp.arin.net> On Jun 12, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > Nortel was found to have exclusive right to transfer addresses allocated to another company, say Bay Networks, which was acquired by Nortel. > So presumably Bay Networks, the original registrant, had some right to transfer blocks to Nortel without ARIN's involvement. From the judge's order: > ??The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet > Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive > right to use the Internet Numbers." Mike - There have been several bankruptcy cases involving transfers of IPv4 addresses (you can find several listed on slide 3 of my recent "Update on IPv4 Transfers" presentation at NANOG 55 - http://teamarin.net/event/nanog-55/) ARIN processed these transfers because they met the policy for IPv4 transfers as set by the community. > Again from the judge :??The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet > Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive > right to use the Internet Numbers." The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and interests "free and clear" to Microsoft. ARIN filed an objection with the court, and the parties were able to work out an amended sale and court order which was satisfactory. The parties (Nortel and Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised sales order that said the addresses "will be placed under a registration services agreement (LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order that read "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA and Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA". ARIN found such that requirement to be sufficient to provide for the necessary compliance with the community policy. You will find even more precise language in all of the subsequent bankruptcy court orders, e.g. in the case of the Borders transfer - " F. Other Provisions. 14. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, including, without limitation, paragraphs J, 3-8, 11 and 16, hereof, (i) the IA Sale, as stated in the Agreements, is conditioned upon ARIN?s consent including any terms and/or conditions established by ARIN?s transfer policies or any other policies, guidelines, or regulations developed by ARIN and published on its website, as may be amended and supplemented from time to time (collectively, ?ARIN?s Policies?), (ii) the transfer of the Debtors? interests in the Internet Addresses to the Purchaser is subject to ARIN?s Policies, (iii) the Debtors and the Purchaser are required to comply with ARIN?s Policies before any transfer of the Debtors? rights in the Internet Addresses may be effectuated.; (iv) ARIN is not required to take any action in violation of ARIN?s Policies in connection with or as a consequence of this Order, the IA Sale, or the Agreements, nor shall ARIN be required to apply a different standard to the transfer of the Internet Addresses than it does to the transfer of non-legacy Internet Protocol numbers. Nothing in this Order is intended, nor shall be construed, as exempting the Debtors and Purchaser from complying with the ARIN Policies. Subject to the conditions set forth in this paragraph, ARIN has approved of the transfer as contemplated herein and shall take reasonable steps to provide assistance for the transfer as contemplated in this Order. " On the other hand, you already knew of both of these cases, and neither of them are the result of parties which ended up in disagreement (which is most likely when these matters will really be decided with far more certainty) > And where is your documentation or supporting law to assert that ARIN's post-hoc policies apply to legacy addresses? > As far a my documentation or case law, > ... It's quite interesting; we've already agreed that these matters are likely to decided in courts, and yet you continue to try and argue legal positions on this mailing list in advance of that event. ARIN is highly likely to be a party in such proceedings, and hence must decline to participate in publicly outlining our legal strategy for obvious reasons. (It would be really nice to get this settled, but that obviously takes more than just ARIN...) Today we have an active IPv4 transfer market, and this includes an ever-growing list of bankruptcy-related transfers completed where the address holders and service providers involved simply followed the policies set by the community for IPv4 specified transfers. It is "running code" and has become rather well-understood, including facilitators to help parties with their requests. I expect to see this significantly increase over time, and soon include some transfers to parties in other regions per recently adopted policy changes. Discussion of further changes to policies is quite welcome and it would be good if we could get back to that - you probably need to talk with someone else about "property which is neither registration rights nor related to the operator community's use of IP addresses", as it doesn't appear to be related to ARIN or its mission as a registry in the management of the IP address space in the region. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 13 01:03:53 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:03:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42@delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403@gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105@sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606@redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21879AE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1F78D9E5-9066-4E5E-BB74-86BD95A10F84@corp.arin.net> On Jun 12, 2012, at 9:22 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] There is really less disagreement here than meets the eye. :-) > [Milton L Mueller] .. > > Perhaps the only point where we differ is that I believe it is advisable for ARIN and other RIRs to concentrate almost exclusively on the registry function and pave the way for competition and diversity in post-allocation services, which means that they should be open to figuring out a way to interact with other registrars, and that means being totally devoted to actually listing who uniquely holds an address block and not making that listing contingent upon maintaining control of various things or conformity to ancillary policies. We might have some disagreement regarding the 'appropriate holder of an address block', but setting that detail aside, ARIN can indeed operate the registry without "conformity to ancillary policies", if the community removes such policies. It's not a direction that can otherwise be pursued, so your advice should really be directed to the ARIN community not "ARIN" (implying the organization itself) > [Milton L Mueller] Do you really mean 'can' it be? If so, yes, with appropriate changes in U.S. law or ICANN rules, ARIN _can_ be so compelled. But I don't think anyone here is advocating that ARIN should be compelled to do so by some external force. I think people are saying - within this process - that it would be good policy to do so, and that ARIN _should_ adopt such a policy. Change "ARIN" to "community" (or even "ARIN community", if you want a less amorphous term) and there is some agreement here. > [Milton L Mueller] Again, I thought we were debating what ARIN policy should be, not whether ARIN should follow its own policies. Correct me if I am wrong. > > Put differently, you don't justify the rejection of a proposed ARIN policy by reiterating that ARIN has the right to follow its own policies. The real debate is about what the policy should be! As long as people are working within the ARIN process to change the policy, they are recognizing that ARIN's actions are guided by its own policies. Again, agreement. It is indeed an interesting day. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 13 09:34:15 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:34:15 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Countdown Plan Question In-Reply-To: <4FCE3CA6.1030604@arin.net> References: <4FCE3CA6.1030604@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FD896D7.1080506@umn.edu> On 6/5/12 12:06 CDT, ARIN wrote: > On 23 April 2012 during ARIN XXIX in Vancouver, Leslie Nobile, Director > of Registration Services gave a presentation on ARIN's plan to manage > the distribution of its remaining IPv4 address pool. > > You can view the presentation at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXIX/webcast/nobile_ipv4_countdown.mov > > We received some great input and in response have made a few adjustments > to the Countdown Plan. > > * The time window to complete payment and the RSA have been extended > from 45 to 60 days. > * Reinstatement of a 30 day hold period for returned, revoked and > reclaimed resources during the final phase of the countdown, when ARIN > supply is at or below one /8 equivalent. > * The block size distribution of ARIN's remaining IPv4 inventory is > now available on the page and will be updated daily. > > The ARIN community has worked together over the last several years in > developing policy to manage how ARIN allocates and assigns IPv4 > addresses. ARIN has reviewed and refined its procedures to create an > IPv4 Countdown Plan explaining how IPv4 requests will be processed as > the remaining IPv4 address pool is distributed. We have posted the > details of the plan at: > https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html We are currently in Phase One and the slides state there is a 6 month hold period in effect, in Phase Two this drops to 3 month, and in Phase Three according to the above the hold period will be 1 month. Is that the correct phasing of the hold period? Does this apply to IPv4 only or is the same hold period applied to other resource types? If it doesn't apply to the other resource types what is the hold period for the other resource types? Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 13 10:01:39 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:01:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Countdown Plan Question In-Reply-To: <4FD896D7.1080506@umn.edu> References: <4FCE3CA6.1030604@arin.net> <4FD896D7.1080506@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4EED6956-5CBB-4009-8E74-633607F9CB90@corp.arin.net> On Jun 13, 2012, at 9:34 AM, David Farmer wrote: >> "ARIN has reviewed and refined its procedures to create an >> IPv4 Countdown Plan explaining how IPv4 requests will be processed as >> the remaining IPv4 address pool is distributed." > Does this apply to IPv4 only or is the same hold period applied to other resource types? The hold periods documented in the plan apply for IPv4 resources; we will work on documenting the hold period for other number resources on the ARIN web site. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Wed Jun 13 11:55:57 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:55:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points you make below? I sometimes interpret your reference to ARIN as if it is a stand alone company that is getting in the way of competition. Is this an error on my part? As you know, ARIN is the collection of members and even opinions that are presented here on this list, and not an independent decision maker. Even you are part of ARIN and influence its behavior. So if we replace the word ARIN, I read your comments to say that it is advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content provider networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave the way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing registrars. My question would be why? As with any value proposition, do the benefits they receive outweigh the price they have to pay? As Chris Engel pointed out better than I ever could, the value is not in the numbers themselves but in the context in which they can be used. All the networks around the globe benefit from the central coordination of the RIR system as a mechanism to participate in the Internet. Because some address holders or individuals wish to trade IP address space for money, it is not done without a cost. To operate under such a model, those costs are pushed out to all those entities listed above that currently benefit from the central coordination. Why should all the network operators across the Internet incur the costs of having to refer to multiple regristrar systems and the inevitable disputes that will result beyond those that already occur in the current model? It is only my opinion but the property argument is misleading. Some are being led to believe that they can pay xxx amount of dollars for an IP block and it will work across the Internet. Those dollars spent, or even a US court order do not guarantee global connectivity to the Internet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a pretty large portion of the Internet that does not care about what a US judge might decide. I think we really need to weigh the costs and the benefits of the road we are heading down. Dan Alexander Speaking only as myself On 6/12/12 9:22 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >> If ARIN, for >> some reason, ceased to provide such a high degree of utility.... if for >> example it operated in a fashion contrary to what most operators >> considered useful, it would cease to have influence as reference source. > >[Milton L Mueller] Yep. And believe it or not, that is basically the same >point I was trying to make with respect to ARIN trying to use its control >of the registry database in a way that is perceived to be (or is in fact) >contrary to the interests of a coalition of legacy holders, operators who >want to communicate with them, brokers, and others. Really, that was all >I was pointing out. If ARIN wants to be the authoritative, universal >reference it can't play fast and loose with the power that comes with >people using it for that purpose. > >Perhaps the only point where we differ is that I believe it is advisable >for ARIN and other RIRs to concentrate almost exclusively on the registry >function and pave the way for competition and diversity in >post-allocation services, which means that they should be open to >figuring out a way to interact with other registrars, and that means >being totally devoted to actually listing who uniquely holds an address >block and not making that listing contingent upon maintaining control of >various things or conformity to ancillary policies. From info at arin.net Wed Jun 13 13:56:24 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:56:24 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Board Adopts Draft Policies - June 2012 Message-ID: <4FD8D448.9090008@arin.net> On 6 June 2012 the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following policies: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying requirements for IPv4 transfers ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers These policies will be implemented no later than 31 July 2012. Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html Draft Policy and Policy Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From tvest at eyeconomics.com Wed Jun 13 14:59:47 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:59:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21D84C94-623B-4006-91A9-DE4710679958@eyeconomics.com> On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Milton, > > If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points you > make below? I sometimes interpret your reference to ARIN as if it is a > stand alone company that is getting in the way of competition. Is this an > error on my part? As you know, ARIN is the collection of members and even > opinions that are presented here on this list, and not an independent > decision maker. Even you are part of ARIN and influence its behavior. Hi Dan, Pardon the interruption, but I think that your first question here is worth highlighting. One of the essential, defining features of the school of economic thought with which Milton is associated is "methodological individualism," which is the view that nothing "good" (from one's own point of view, i.e., "what I want") can be meaningfully explained or rationalized, and nothing "bad" (from anyone else's point of view, i.e., "what you/they reject") can be credibly justified, by reference to any collective entity (group, state, country, "the community," etc.). Methodological individualists don't deny the existence of groupings as such, but tend to attribute the actions that others commonly associate with such collectives to the influence/machinations of the most powerful individual members within such groups. For the true methodological individualist, the blanket rejection of such "collective explanations" extends not only to current goings-on, but also to all of the accumulated past actions and decisions that have resulted in the laws, rules, norms, conventions etc. that effective determine what's legal/illegal, appropriate/inappropriate, etc. today. By implication, no rule, law, institution, or norm has ever been "legitimate" at any point in time unless, at that point in time, it enjoyed the universal approval of everyone who was subject to its effects -- and no rule, law, institution, or norm that currently exists can be deemed "legitimate" now unless it has continuously enjoyed that same universal approval at all points in time leading up to the present day. Ergo, today's "so-called democracies" are, in principle, not much better, more legitimate, or today's "so-called autocratic regimes." I thought that this particular question deserved calling out because methodological individualism is one of the most important factors that have caused institutions like the RIRs to become an increasingly attractive target for certain (mostly academic) traditions. For the last century or so, academics whose perspectives are informed by MI have devoted appx. 100% of their time and effort to criticizing their arch-nemesis, "big government" -- which tends to makes such fields very crowded, competitive, and probably more than a little "stale" to work in. Recently, however, they seemed to have discovered that there is a "ready market" for applying the same MI-based critiques to other kinds of institutions. To get an idea of what this will likely mean for future RIR policy debates, just reread some of the old MI classics and replace the terms "democracy" vs. "autocracy" with "consensus-based" vs. "top-down decision making." For those who are interested, here's couple of references written by the leading champions of methodological individualism: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Democracy Regards, TV > So if we replace the word ARIN, I read your comments to say that it is > advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content provider > networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave the > way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing > registrars. > > My question would be why? As with any value proposition, do the benefits > they receive outweigh the price they have to pay? As Chris Engel pointed > out better than I ever could, the value is not in the numbers themselves > but in the context in which they can be used. All the networks around the > globe benefit from the central coordination of the RIR system as a > mechanism to participate in the Internet. > > Because some address holders or individuals wish to trade IP address space > for money, it is not done without a cost. To operate under such a model, > those costs are pushed out to all those entities listed above that > currently benefit from the central coordination. Why should all the > network operators across the Internet incur the costs of having to refer > to multiple regristrar systems and the inevitable disputes that will > result beyond those that already occur in the current model? > > It is only my opinion but the property argument is misleading. Some are > being led to believe that they can pay xxx amount of dollars for an IP > block and it will work across the Internet. Those dollars spent, or even a > US court order do not guarantee global connectivity to the Internet. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a pretty large portion of the > Internet that does not care about what a US judge might decide. I think we > really need to weigh the costs and the benefits of the road we are heading > down. > > Dan Alexander > Speaking only as myself > > > On 6/12/12 9:22 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > >>> If ARIN, for >>> some reason, ceased to provide such a high degree of utility.... if for >>> example it operated in a fashion contrary to what most operators >>> considered useful, it would cease to have influence as reference source. >> >> [Milton L Mueller] Yep. And believe it or not, that is basically the same >> point I was trying to make with respect to ARIN trying to use its control >> of the registry database in a way that is perceived to be (or is in fact) >> contrary to the interests of a coalition of legacy holders, operators who >> want to communicate with them, brokers, and others. Really, that was all >> I was pointing out. If ARIN wants to be the authoritative, universal >> reference it can't play fast and loose with the power that comes with >> people using it for that purpose. >> >> Perhaps the only point where we differ is that I believe it is advisable >> for ARIN and other RIRs to concentrate almost exclusively on the registry >> function and pave the way for competition and diversity in >> post-allocation services, which means that they should be open to >> figuring out a way to interact with other registrars, and that means >> being totally devoted to actually listing who uniquely holds an address >> block and not making that listing contingent upon maintaining control of >> various things or conformity to ancillary policies. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 13 23:04:52 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:04:52 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points > you make below? [Milton L Mueller] Sure... > [is it] advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content provider > networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave > the way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing > registrars. [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for others, it will make little difference either way. There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests on this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we don't have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism in the social sciences to agree on that simple fact. > My question would be why? As with any value proposition, do the benefits > they receive outweigh the price they have to pay? [Milton L Mueller] That depends on how big the price is and how big the benefits are. I suspect that both will be a function of the length of time it takes to get to IPv6, if we get there at all. If we enter into an extended period of IPv4/v6 coexistence, say 10 years or more, increasingly scarce v4 resources will need to be carefully managed and husbanded. In that case, the value of having specialist address registrars and a competitive post-allocation services market would be quite enormous, and extend to quite a few operators. And the value of having ARIN and the other RIRs develop an ability to integrate multiple private, competing, efficient registrars with a single, global authoritative database would be potentially quite beneficial also - even if the transition to v6 was not so long. > All the networks around > the globe benefit from the central coordination of the RIR system as a > mechanism to participate in the Internet. [Milton L Mueller] problem is, it isn't really centrally coordinated. There are 5 RIRs and you have to search separately in each one. The RIRs and their Whois are actually quite antiquated in some respects. > Because some address holders or individuals wish to trade IP address > space for money, it is not done without a cost. To operate under such a > model, those costs are pushed out to all those entities listed above > that currently benefit from the central coordination. Why should all the [Milton L Mueller] I have been saying all along that you can have central coordination AND competition/multiple registrars; we do it in DNS and we do it in stock trades. So are you assuming that the model I am discussing involves eliminating coordinated uniqueness? No wonder you think you're against it! > network operators across the Internet incur the costs of having to refer > to multiple regristrar systems and the inevitable disputes that will > result beyond those that already occur in the current model? [Milton L Mueller] Like Paul V., you see this as something that only a few brokers want. I suspect that it is operators and ipv4 address holders that will drive this, the brokers are only responding to that market. If the operators don't want it, or if it harms operators or increases their relative costs, it won't happen. On that we agree. > It is only my opinion but the property argument is misleading. Some are > being led to believe that they can pay xxx amount of dollars for an IP > block and it will work across the Internet. Those dollars spent, or even > a US court order do not guarantee global connectivity to the Internet. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a pretty large portion of the > Internet that does not care about what a US judge might decide. I think > we really need to weigh the costs and the benefits of the road we are > heading down. [Milton L Mueller] I think if RIRs or whatever registration system evolves out of them accurately reflect the results of trades, then yes, damn right, someone ought to be able to pay xxx dollars for an IP block and those addresses should be as easily routable as they were before the trade. > Dan Alexander > Speaking only as myself [Tom Vest] speaking for Milton Mueller [Milton L Mueller] speaking for myself, too From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 14 00:27:06 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:27:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <44D0D2CC-207C-44C8-8BFA-AE7C2770534A@delong.com> On Jun 13, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points >> you make below? > > [Milton L Mueller] Sure... > >> [is it] advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content provider >> networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave >> the way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing >> registrars. > > [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for others, it will make little difference either way. > There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests on this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we don't have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism in the social sciences to agree on that simple fact. > That simple fact isn't. You state that some have an emphatic interest, which I believe, but, you also assert that no harm is created by destroying the existing system of policies in favor of this new zero-policy regime. Here, you are off the rails when you claim that is simple fact. Indeed, there is no basis for such a claim and ample evidence to the contrary. >> My question would be why? As with any value proposition, do the benefits >> they receive outweigh the price they have to pay? > > [Milton L Mueller] That depends on how big the price is and how big the benefits are. I suspect that both will be a function of the length of time it takes to get to IPv6, if we get there at all. If we enter into an extended period of IPv4/v6 coexistence, say 10 years or more, increasingly scarce v4 resources will need to be carefully managed and husbanded. In that case, the value of having specialist address registrars and a competitive post-allocation services market would be quite enormous, and extend to quite a few operators. And the value of having ARIN and the other RIRs develop an ability to integrate multiple private, competing, efficient registrars with a single, global authoritative database would be potentially quite beneficial also - even if the transition to v6 was not so long. The price includes, but is not limited to: The ability to have any form of homogenous address management policy administered by the community. To me, that's a pretty steep price to pay given that the natural outcome of such a situation is corporate darwinism and the golden rule (he who has the gold rules). > >> All the networks around >> the globe benefit from the central coordination of the RIR system as a >> mechanism to participate in the Internet. > > [Milton L Mueller] problem is, it isn't really centrally coordinated. There are 5 RIRs and you have to search separately in each one. The RIRs and their Whois are actually quite antiquated in some respects. > Actually, this isn't really true. Each RIR contains referral entries which are easily parseable pointing to the other RIRs records... You can search IANA and get a pointer to the applicable RIR for each /8 (and in a few cases, smaller blocks). ARIN and LACNIC also return pointers to the correct other RIR in response to queries for out-of-region resources. You should never need to search more than 2 registries to get the data you need, even if we added more registries. Compare this to DNS, where you actually have to recurse at least 3 servers, just to get an authoritative record for a second-level domain (root-server, TLD-server, zone authoritative server). It would not actually be hard to implement a tool which would automatically recurse the whois hierarchy, but, I suspect nobody has found it to be worth the effort since the (maximum) 2 queries for an address you don't know where to find is really not that hard and I suspect most people rarely end up searching for addresses in unknown regions. >> Because some address holders or individuals wish to trade IP address >> space for money, it is not done without a cost. To operate under such a >> model, those costs are pushed out to all those entities listed above >> that currently benefit from the central coordination. Why should all the > > [Milton L Mueller] I have been saying all along that you can have central coordination AND competition/multiple registrars; we do it in DNS and we do it in stock trades. So are you assuming that the model I am discussing involves eliminating coordinated uniqueness? No wonder you think you're against it! > DNS is effectively the wild west unless you run afoul of WIPO's interest and/or the law. I would not hold it up as a shining example of how this should work, but, rather point to it as the fetid pit that will result from this proposal. As to stock trades, I'll leave the relative merits of that system to the debate between you and TV as Tom seems far more informed that I would ever want to be on the subject. >> network operators across the Internet incur the costs of having to refer >> to multiple regristrar systems and the inevitable disputes that will >> result beyond those that already occur in the current model? > > [Milton L Mueller] Like Paul V., you see this as something that only a few brokers want. I suspect that it is operators and ipv4 address holders that will drive this, the brokers are only responding to that market. If the operators don't want it, or if it harms operators or increases their relative costs, it won't happen. On that we agree. > Actually, I disagree. I believe that in the long run ASN trading will harm operators and increase their costs. The same is true with IPv4 trading, but, not allowing it would have done more harm. However, what matters is whether or not the operators (and others) that participate in the ARIN policy process perceive that harm at the time of policy development. I will point out that the last ARIN PPM had roughly 10x by my count the number of lawyers as any previous ARIN meeting I can remember (and I have attended the vast majority of them at this point). The financial interests looking to profit from the creation of this market (I believe they are trying to create it for their own benefit more than responding to its existence, in fact) are becoming more active in the policy process as they see this as the best way to achieve their goals. >> It is only my opinion but the property argument is misleading. Some are >> being led to believe that they can pay xxx amount of dollars for an IP >> block and it will work across the Internet. Those dollars spent, or even >> a US court order do not guarantee global connectivity to the Internet. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a pretty large portion of the >> Internet that does not care about what a US judge might decide. I think >> we really need to weigh the costs and the benefits of the road we are >> heading down. > > [Milton L Mueller] I think if RIRs or whatever registration system evolves out of them accurately reflect the results of trades, then yes, damn right, someone ought to be able to pay xxx dollars for an IP block and those addresses should be as easily routable as they were before the trade. > If the block is the same size as it was before the trade, perhaps, but, there are other factors that I believe should govern the transfer of addresses. However, often in these trades, blocks are subdivided from previous blocks and smaller blocks are, necessarily, harder to get routed than larger ones until the routing system is fundamentally changed. I doubt anyone would invest the effort necessary to do so for IPv4. I am hoping that this will get done for IPv6. It is sad and frustrating that IETF dropped the ball on this when developing IPv6. Owen From tvest at eyeconomics.com Thu Jun 14 06:22:53 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:22:53 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <87A1E748-FA7C-4FEE-A689-4D456F067791@eyeconomics.com> On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points >> you make below? > > [Milton L Mueller] Sure... > >> [is it] advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content provider >> networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave >> the way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing >> registrars. > > [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for others, it will make little difference either way. > There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests on this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we don't have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism in the social sciences to agree on that simple fact. What an ironic choice of metaphors. Thanks in part to your efforts, the "well" will soon be nothing more than a dry (but poison-proof) hole in the ground. Kudos... EOL. TV From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 14 07:16:24 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:16:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <87A1E748-FA7C-4FEE-A689-4D456F067791@eyeconomics.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <87A1E748-FA7C-4FEE-A689-4D456F067791@eyeconomics.com> Message-ID: <71BC28B6-67C0-4A4D-A27B-E69B7F57D79F@corp.arin.net> Folks - We have two policy proposals that need discussion regarding their merits. Focusing discussion on these proposals will help achieve this goal. Thanks! /John On Jun 14, 2012, at 6:22 AM, Tom Vest wrote: > On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for others, it will make little difference either way. >> There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests on this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we don't have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism in the social sciences to agree on that simple fact. > > What an ironic choice of metaphors. > Thanks in part to your efforts, the "well" will soon be nothing more than a dry (but poison-proof) hole in the ground. Kudos... > > EOL. > > TV From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 07:55:51 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:55:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <87A1E748-FA7C-4FEE-A689-4D456F067791@eyeconomics.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <87A1E748-FA7C-4FEE-A689-4D456F067791@eyeconomics.com> Message-ID: On 6/14/12, Tom Vest wrote: > On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> [Milton L Mueller] Sure... >>> [is it] advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content >>> provider >>> networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave >>> the way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing >>> registrars. Well, in a policy discussion, that is begging the question. That's not an accepted fact. WHY is it proposed that everyone who operates the internet should pave the way for "post-allocation" services? If by that you mean something other than return of unused resources to the RIR free pool, and re-allocation by the RIR to a new organization which has applied for resources: Allocation of resources by community operated registries such as RIRs is the procedure that has been standardized. All resources are allocated, even the legacy ones are allocated, and the allocations have various strings that the allocation is to be kept, only the duration during which the resources are required and used for networks. This method of resource assignment has been successful, although it will not be able to prevent exhaustion, it at least provides a measure of fairness in the assignment of resources, better than economic methods of distribution, rather than allowing the highest bidder to buy up all slots in the IP registration database, and scalp them / sell them at a price made possible through artificial scarcity. >> [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for >> others, it will make little difference either way. >> There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests >> on this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we >> don't have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism >> in the social sciences to agree on that simple fact. No, we just have to try to reach consensus on the matter of the policy proposal. Which is by definition either a degree of homogenization of interests on the matter, or of adjustments to the matter / proposal so that the number and degree of conflicts are insignificant.. I am still opposed to PP172, and this latest discussion is no more compelling than the rationale statement -- -JH From cengel at conxeo.com Thu Jun 14 12:36:46 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:36:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > [Milton L Mueller] Like Paul V., you see this as something that only a few > brokers want. I suspect that it is operators and ipv4 address holders that will > drive this, the brokers are only responding to that market. If the operators > don't want it, or if it harms operators or increases their relative costs, it won't > happen. On that we agree. Prof. Mueller, Philosophically, I'm rather sympathetic to the concept of ARIN acting as a simple registrar of record for transfers of already allocated address blocks. Due to the difference in dynamics between allocated and unallocated address blocks, it's clear to me that managing allocations from the free pool necessitated a more aggressive resource stewardship role from ARIN for those address blocks and that same role isn't necessitated for already allocated blocks. That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already allocated resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets certain minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a whole to impose such requirements. While that belief is certainly not universal among the community (and I'm not a big fan of it myself), there appears to have been enough consensus on it that it was enacted into policy. Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result in is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for entities who acquire address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address holders. I'm failing to see what the rationale for that difference in treatment is? What is it that makes those policy requirements useful/fair to apply in one case and not useful/fair in the other? It's strikes me that sort of inequal application of policies/requirements isn't a great thing for the community as a whole. I fully understand why the ORIGIONAL holders of legacy address space were treated differently in regards the resources they ALREADY had. Not only was there the uncertain legal question of attempting to impose conditions on entities ARIN had no contractual relationship with, but more importantly there was the consideration of unnecessary disruptiveness in attempting to change the conditions under which those entities had been holding those resources for years. In other words, if entity A was widely recognized as holding a particular block for years before ARIN, it's alot more harmful/disruptive to try to revoke that recognition then it is to allow it an exemption to certain requirements imposed upon new registrants. The paradigm is not much different then the "Grandfather Clauses" which exist in certain laws/regulations. The rationale behind those is to limit the harm/disruption of imposing change on what had been upto that point relatively stable/well functioning systems while still allowing changes to be introduced which are perceived as necessary/beneficial to the continuing function of the system as a whole. Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which holds it and the reasoning for that would seem to apply here, the disruption it is intended to avoid is already imposed by the act of transfer itself, no additional harm/disruption is realized by declining to allow the transfer of the exemption along with the resource, and indeed if the policy requirements are actually well founded and beneficial, perpetuating the exemption would impose harm in itself. So again, I fail to see why requiring a transferee to justify need (for example) when receiving non-legacy space is a good thing and suddenly turns into a bad thing when the space is legacy? If the argument is that needs requirements in transfers are not beneficial in general, while I'm personally sympathetic to that position, I believe that particular battle has already been fought and lost. Are you proposing another run at it? Christopher Engel > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:05 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > -----Original Message----- > > If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points > > you make below? > > [Milton L Mueller] Sure... > > > [is it] advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content > provider > > networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave > > the way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing > > registrars. > > [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for > others, it will make little difference either way. > There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests on > this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we don't > have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism in the > social sciences to agree on that simple fact. > > > My question would be why? As with any value proposition, do the benefits > > they receive outweigh the price they have to pay? > > [Milton L Mueller] That depends on how big the price is and how big the > benefits are. I suspect that both will be a function of the length of time it > takes to get to IPv6, if we get there at all. If we enter into an extended > period of IPv4/v6 coexistence, say 10 years or more, increasingly scarce v4 > resources will need to be carefully managed and husbanded. In that case, > the value of having specialist address registrars and a competitive post- > allocation services market would be quite enormous, and extend to quite a > few operators. And the value of having ARIN and the other RIRs develop an > ability to integrate multiple private, competing, efficient registrars with a > single, global authoritative database would be potentially quite beneficial > also - even if the transition to v6 was not so long. > > > All the networks around > > the globe benefit from the central coordination of the RIR system as a > > mechanism to participate in the Internet. > > [Milton L Mueller] problem is, it isn't really centrally coordinated. There are 5 > RIRs and you have to search separately in each one. The RIRs and their Whois > are actually quite antiquated in some respects. > > > Because some address holders or individuals wish to trade IP address > > space for money, it is not done without a cost. To operate under such a > > model, those costs are pushed out to all those entities listed above > > that currently benefit from the central coordination. Why should all the > > [Milton L Mueller] I have been saying all along that you can have central > coordination AND competition/multiple registrars; we do it in DNS and we do > it in stock trades. So are you assuming that the model I am discussing involves > eliminating coordinated uniqueness? No wonder you think you're against it! > > > network operators across the Internet incur the costs of having to refer > > to multiple regristrar systems and the inevitable disputes that will > > result beyond those that already occur in the current model? > > [Milton L Mueller] Like Paul V., you see this as something that only a few > brokers want. I suspect that it is operators and ipv4 address holders that will > drive this, the brokers are only responding to that market. If the operators > don't want it, or if it harms operators or increases their relative costs, it won't > happen. On that we agree. > > > It is only my opinion but the property argument is misleading. Some are > > being led to believe that they can pay xxx amount of dollars for an IP > > block and it will work across the Internet. Those dollars spent, or even > > a US court order do not guarantee global connectivity to the Internet. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a pretty large portion of the > > Internet that does not care about what a US judge might decide. I think > > we really need to weigh the costs and the benefits of the road we are > > heading down. > > [Milton L Mueller] I think if RIRs or whatever registration system evolves out > of them accurately reflect the results of trades, then yes, damn right, > someone ought to be able to pay xxx dollars for an IP block and those > addresses should be as easily routable as they were before the trade. > > > Dan Alexander > > Speaking only as myself > > [Tom Vest] speaking for Milton Mueller > [Milton L Mueller] speaking for myself, too > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Thu Jun 14 12:44:55 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:44:55 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <4FCFCAA8.70001@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFCAA8.70001@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FDA1507.3060505@burnttofu.net> Opposed to both the original and modified proposal. michael On 6/6/12 2:24 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources > > The proposal originator revised the proposal. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 3 > > Date: 6 June May 2012 > > Policy statement: > > 8.4 Transfers of Legacy Resources to Specified Recipients > > 8.4.1 Legacy Number Resource and ASN Transfers > > Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred to > organizations in any RIR's service region. > > 8.4.2 Minimum Transfer Size > > Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred in blocks > of the minimum allocation unit of the recipient RIR. > > 8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements > > Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number > resources and ASN's are waived. > > 8.4.4 Registry Services > > ARIN will insure that all parties to a legacy number resource or ASN > transfer agree to provide and maintain accurate WHOIS contact data in > compliance with WHOIS policy. Transfers shall not be completed until > all submitted WHOIS update data has been verified as accurate. > > 8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation > > No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody > demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the > legitimate holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the > resource. Upon confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource, > ARIN will certify that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain > this certification on file for future reference. > > 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications > > ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications > or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained and presented for > transfer. > Such reclaimed resources will be immediately placed on an Abandoned > Resources List and in escrow. The list shall be > made available to the public. > > 8.4.7. Legacy resources under agreement with ARIN > > As of the date of adoption of this policy, no legacy resource holder > shall be allowed to execute an Legacy Resource Services Agreement > without being able to pass a full chain of custody certification. Upon > failure of certification, ARIN will place the resources on the > "Abandoned Resources List" per Section 8.4.6 until custody issues have > been resolved. > > > Rationale: > > The ARIN region has a large pool of legacy number resources and ASN's > that most agree is causing the pace of IPv6 adoption to under-perform. > Providing a means through policy to exhaust these pools "should" > stimulate the adoption of IPv6. The language for non legacy address > and ASN transfers is unaffected in this proposal. > > The proposal seeks to set clear and written standards for both the > legacy and non legacy number resource and ASN transfer function along > a recognized boundary. Standard setting will have a desirable > technically oriented result that would benefit the community by moving > us closer to a) full compatibility of 16 and 32 bit ASN's b) bringing > the legacy trading market entirely above board c) providing standards > for them to operate by and d) providing for full transparency and > accountability to the community. it is also acknowledged that > providing standards as such may > increase the value of IPv4 addresses in certain transactions such as > bankruptcy disposition as a result of removing uncertainty > around the clear requirements that allow for easy and voluntary > compliance with ARIN policies. > > Requiring a chain of custody > validation as part of the process will hopefully discourage > unauthorized transferors from wasting the effort and capital of > legitimate transferees and ARIN. > > The whois requirements are a small price to > pay for the ability to transfer a legacy resource. It should also be > noted that no party is prevented from signing an LRSA if they > so desire. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 14 12:54:23 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:54:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <4FDA1507.3060505@burnttofu.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFCAA8.70001@arin.net> <4FDA1507.3060505@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <47BFD8E9-D2AC-4FD9-84A5-CEF89653C06C@corp.arin.net> Michael - Can you include briefly why you are opposed and in particular if there are changes to either than might change your view? (This helps proposal originators have a better understanding of the merits and concerns with their proposed changes...) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote: > Opposed to both the original and modified proposal. > > michael > > On 6/6/12 2:24 PM, ARIN wrote: >> ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources >> >> The proposal originator revised the proposal. >> >> Regards, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> >> ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources >> >> Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan >> >> Proposal Version: 3 >> >> Date: 6 June May 2012 >> >> Policy statement: >> >> 8.4 Transfers of Legacy Resources to Specified Recipients >> >> 8.4.1 Legacy Number Resource and ASN Transfers >> >> Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred to >> organizations in any RIR's service region. >> >> 8.4.2 Minimum Transfer Size >> >> Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred in blocks >> of the minimum allocation unit of the recipient RIR. >> >> 8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements >> >> Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number >> resources and ASN's are waived. >> >> 8.4.4 Registry Services >> >> ARIN will insure that all parties to a legacy number resource or ASN >> transfer agree to provide and maintain accurate WHOIS contact data in >> compliance with WHOIS policy. Transfers shall not be completed until >> all submitted WHOIS update data has been verified as accurate. >> >> 8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation >> >> No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody >> demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the >> legitimate holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the >> resource. Upon confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource, >> ARIN will certify that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain >> this certification on file for future reference. >> >> 8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications >> >> ARIN will reclaim resources that fail chain of custody certifications >> or are deemed to have been fraudulently obtained and presented for >> transfer. >> Such reclaimed resources will be immediately placed on an Abandoned >> Resources List and in escrow. The list shall be >> made available to the public. >> >> 8.4.7. Legacy resources under agreement with ARIN >> >> As of the date of adoption of this policy, no legacy resource holder >> shall be allowed to execute an Legacy Resource Services Agreement >> without being able to pass a full chain of custody certification. Upon >> failure of certification, ARIN will place the resources on the >> "Abandoned Resources List" per Section 8.4.6 until custody issues have >> been resolved. >> >> >> Rationale: >> >> The ARIN region has a large pool of legacy number resources and ASN's >> that most agree is causing the pace of IPv6 adoption to under-perform. >> Providing a means through policy to exhaust these pools "should" >> stimulate the adoption of IPv6. The language for non legacy address >> and ASN transfers is unaffected in this proposal. >> >> The proposal seeks to set clear and written standards for both the >> legacy and non legacy number resource and ASN transfer function along >> a recognized boundary. Standard setting will have a desirable >> technically oriented result that would benefit the community by moving >> us closer to a) full compatibility of 16 and 32 bit ASN's b) bringing >> the legacy trading market entirely above board c) providing standards >> for them to operate by and d) providing for full transparency and >> accountability to the community. it is also acknowledged that >> providing standards as such may >> increase the value of IPv4 addresses in certain transactions such as >> bankruptcy disposition as a result of removing uncertainty >> around the clear requirements that allow for easy and voluntary >> compliance with ARIN policies. >> >> Requiring a chain of custody >> validation as part of the process will hopefully discourage >> unauthorized transferors from wasting the effort and capital of >> legitimate transferees and ARIN. >> >> The whois requirements are a small price to >> pay for the ability to transfer a legacy resource. It should also be >> noted that no party is prevented from signing an LRSA if they >> so desire. >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mike at nationwideinc.com Thu Jun 14 13:01:10 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:01:10 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <62C2E556EFFC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> >Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which holds >it >If the argument is that needs requirements in transfers are not beneficial >in general, while I'm personally sympathetic to that position, I believe >that particular battle has already been fought and lost. Are you proposing >another run at it? Hi Chris, I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy holders ARE legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space without any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel. Secondly, I watched this presentation at NANOG54, but couldn't tell what the temperature in the room was towards treating legacy addresses as property. http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/presentations/Monday/NANOG_54_02_Keynote_ipv4.wmv My feeling is that maybe it is time for another run at removing the needs test for legacy transfers, as the last run was an attempt to remove the needs test from all transfers, not just legacy. Regards and pardon the interruption, Mike Burns -----Original Message----- From: Chris Engel Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:36 PM To: 'Milton L Mueller' ; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection 2 - Legacy Resources > [Milton L Mueller] Like Paul V., you see this as something that only a few > brokers want. I suspect that it is operators and ipv4 address holders that > will > drive this, the brokers are only responding to that market. If the > operators > don't want it, or if it harms operators or increases their relative costs, > it won't > happen. On that we agree. Prof. Mueller, Philosophically, I'm rather sympathetic to the concept of ARIN acting as a simple registrar of record for transfers of already allocated address blocks. Due to the difference in dynamics between allocated and unallocated address blocks, it's clear to me that managing allocations from the free pool necessitated a more aggressive resource stewardship role from ARIN for those address blocks and that same role isn't necessitated for already allocated blocks. That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already allocated resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets certain minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a whole to impose such requirements. While that belief is certainly not universal among the community (and I'm not a big fan of it myself), there appears to have been enough consensus on it that it was enacted into policy. Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result in is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for entities who acquire address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address holders. I'm failing to see what the rationale for that difference in treatment is? What is it that makes those policy requirements useful/fair to apply in one case and not useful/fair in the other? It's strikes me that sort of inequal application of policies/requirements isn't a great thing for the community as a whole. I fully understand why the ORIGIONAL holders of legacy address space were treated differently in regards the resources they ALREADY had. Not only was there the uncertain legal question of attempting to impose conditions on entities ARIN had no contractual relationship with, but more importantly there was the consideration of unnecessary disruptiveness in attempting to change the conditions under which those entities had been holding those resources for years. In other words, if entity A was widely recognized as holding a particular block for years before ARIN, it's alot more harmful/disruptive to try to revoke that recognition then it is to allow it an exemption to certain requirements imposed upon new registrants. The paradigm is not much different then the "Grandfather Clauses" which exist in certain laws/regulations. The rationale behind those is to limit the harm/disruption of imposing change on what had been upto that point relatively stable/well functioning systems whi le still allowing changes to be introduced which are perceived as necessary/beneficial to the continuing function of the system as a whole. Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which holds it and the reasoning for that would seem to apply here, the disruption it is intended to avoid is already imposed by the act of transfer itself, no additional harm/disruption is realized by declining to allow the transfer of the exemption along with the resource, and indeed if the policy requirements are actually well founded and beneficial, perpetuating the exemption would impose harm in itself. So again, I fail to see why requiring a transferee to justify need (for example) when receiving non-legacy space is a good thing and suddenly turns into a bad thing when the space is legacy? If the argument is that needs requirements in transfers are not beneficial in general, while I'm personally sympathetic to that position, I believe that particular battle has already been fought and lost. Are you proposing another run at it? Christopher Engel > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:05 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > -----Original Message----- > > If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points > > you make below? > > [Milton L Mueller] Sure... > > > [is it] advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content > provider > > networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave > > the way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing > > registrars. > > [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for > others, it will make little difference either way. > There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests > on > this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we > don't > have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism in the > social sciences to agree on that simple fact. > > > My question would be why? As with any value proposition, do the benefits > > they receive outweigh the price they have to pay? > > [Milton L Mueller] That depends on how big the price is and how big the > benefits are. I suspect that both will be a function of the length of time > it > takes to get to IPv6, if we get there at all. If we enter into an extended > period of IPv4/v6 coexistence, say 10 years or more, increasingly scarce > v4 > resources will need to be carefully managed and husbanded. In that case, > the value of having specialist address registrars and a competitive post- > allocation services market would be quite enormous, and extend to quite a > few operators. And the value of having ARIN and the other RIRs develop an > ability to integrate multiple private, competing, efficient registrars > with a > single, global authoritative database would be potentially quite > beneficial > also - even if the transition to v6 was not so long. > > > All the networks around > > the globe benefit from the central coordination of the RIR system as a > > mechanism to participate in the Internet. > > [Milton L Mueller] problem is, it isn't really centrally coordinated. > There are 5 > RIRs and you have to search separately in each one. The RIRs and their > Whois > are actually quite antiquated in some respects. > > > Because some address holders or individuals wish to trade IP address > > space for money, it is not done without a cost. To operate under such a > > model, those costs are pushed out to all those entities listed above > > that currently benefit from the central coordination. Why should all the > > [Milton L Mueller] I have been saying all along that you can have central > coordination AND competition/multiple registrars; we do it in DNS and we > do > it in stock trades. So are you assuming that the model I am discussing > involves > eliminating coordinated uniqueness? No wonder you think you're against it! > > > network operators across the Internet incur the costs of having to refer > > to multiple regristrar systems and the inevitable disputes that will > > result beyond those that already occur in the current model? > > [Milton L Mueller] Like Paul V., you see this as something that only a few > brokers want. I suspect that it is operators and ipv4 address holders that > will > drive this, the brokers are only responding to that market. If the > operators > don't want it, or if it harms operators or increases their relative costs, > it won't > happen. On that we agree. > > > It is only my opinion but the property argument is misleading. Some are > > being led to believe that they can pay xxx amount of dollars for an IP > > block and it will work across the Internet. Those dollars spent, or even > > a US court order do not guarantee global connectivity to the Internet. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a pretty large portion of the > > Internet that does not care about what a US judge might decide. I think > > we really need to weigh the costs and the benefits of the road we are > > heading down. > > [Milton L Mueller] I think if RIRs or whatever registration system evolves > out > of them accurately reflect the results of trades, then yes, damn right, > someone ought to be able to pay xxx dollars for an IP block and those > addresses should be as easily routable as they were before the trade. > > > Dan Alexander > > Speaking only as myself > > [Tom Vest] speaking for Milton Mueller > [Milton L Mueller] speaking for myself, too > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Thu Jun 14 13:12:50 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:12:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <47BFD8E9-D2AC-4FD9-84A5-CEF89653C06C@corp.arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFCAA8.70001@arin.net> <4FDA1507.3060505@burnttofu.net> <47BFD8E9-D2AC-4FD9-84A5-CEF89653C06C@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4FDA1B92.5030706@burnttofu.net> On 6/14/12 9:54 AM, John Curran wrote: > Michael - > > Can you include briefly why you are opposed and in particular > if there are changes to either than might change your view? > > (This helps proposal originators have a better understanding > of the merits and concerns with their proposed changes...) Hi John: To be honest, reading through this thread has been painful, so let me be brief (at least by my standards): I do not believe that legacy resources should be treated differently from the perspective of registry policy. Note that during the time I have been participating in ARIN, I have represented two different legacy holders, one who has signed at LRSA (along with RSA) and the other who hasn't signed an LRSA (but who also has RSA-covered resources). I do not agree with the rationale of this policy; specifically that legacy resources are inhibiting the adoption of IPv6. Some of the biggest and earliest adopters of IPv6 are legacy holders, particularly USG and US EDU organizations. Much of what has transpired in this thread has basically made me want to affirm my opposition to 171 and 172, so I don't think there's much that will change my mind. thanks, michael From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 14 13:17:25 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:17:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <62C2E556EFFC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <62C2E556EFFC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy holders ARE > legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space without > any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel. That's an very interesting conclusion, given that ARIN was present & concurred with the transfer (which we did because the recipient met requirements and had already entered into an registration agreement with ARIN), but it wouldn't be the first time someone has tried to assert such. Current practice has shown it to be otherwise; no transfers have occurred without meeting community policy. > ... > My feeling is that maybe it is time for another run at removing the needs > test for legacy transfers, as the last run was an attempt to remove the > needs test from all transfers, not just legacy. If your assertion is correct, then no policy change is needed, instead one simply pursues those legal rights that you feel they already hold. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mike at nationwideinc.com Thu Jun 14 13:30:40 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:30:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><62C2E556EF FC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> Message-ID: <1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> >> I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy holders >> ARE >> legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space >> without >> any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel. >That's an very interesting conclusion, given that ARIN was present & >concurred >with the transfer (which we did because the recipient met requirements and >had >already entered into an registration agreement with ARIN), but it wouldn't >be >the first time someone has tried to assert such. Current practice has >shown >it to be otherwise; no transfers have occurred without meeting community >policy. Did ARIN have any agreement with Nortel which allowed Nortel to sell Bay Network's address space? If not, how did Nortel have the *legal* right to sell address space originally allocated to Bay Networks? Chris' point was that a grandfather clause-like situation existed, and that usually those rights are not transferable. But in this case the legacy rights afforded to Bay Networks WERE transferred to Nortel, whom the judge found to have the exclusive right to transfer. > ... >> My feeling is that maybe it is time for another run at removing the needs >> test for legacy transfers, as the last run was an attempt to remove the >> needs test from all transfers, not just legacy. >If your assertion is correct, then no policy change is needed, instead one >simply pursues those legal rights that you feel they already hold. Or maybe a policy change is needed to align ARIN policy with the law. Regards, Mike From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 14 13:34:37 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:34:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <62C2E556EFFC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> < 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <62C2E556EFFC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> Message-ID: Sent from my iPad On Jun 14, 2012, at 1:01 PM, "Mike Burns" wrote: >> Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which holds >> it > >> If the argument is that needs requirements in transfers are not beneficial >> in general, while I'm personally sympathetic to that position, I believe >> that particular battle has already been fought and lost. Are you proposing >> another run at it? > > Hi Chris, > > I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy holders ARE > legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space without > any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel. > 1. I'm not convinced that there really are exceptions, per se. 2. To the extent that a grandfathered exception does apply, it may be transferrable under section 8.2. However, it does not apply to transfers under 8.3. > Secondly, I watched this presentation at NANOG54, but couldn't tell what the > temperature in the room was towards treating legacy addresses as property. > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/presentations/Monday/NANOG_54_02_Keynote_ipv4.wmv > > My feeling is that maybe it is time for another run at removing the needs > test for legacy transfers, as the last run was an attempt to remove the > needs test from all transfers, not just legacy. I would oppose creating legacy-specific transfer policy. There is no need for it, it is not justified, and the community would be harmed. Owen From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 14 13:37:46 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:37:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><62C2E556EF FC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> <1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > Did ARIN have any agreement with Nortel which allowed Nortel to sell Bay Network's address space? > If not, how did Nortel have the *legal* right to sell address space originally allocated to Bay Networks? Please see NRPM 8.2. >> If your assertion is correct, then no policy change is needed, instead one >> simply pursues those legal rights that you feel they already hold. > > Or maybe a policy change is needed to align ARIN policy with the law. We have good alignment today, and will update if needed in the future. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cb.list6 at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 13:48:30 2012 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Cameron Byrne) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:48:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <4FDA1B92.5030706@burnttofu.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFCAA8.70001@arin.net> <4FDA1507.3060505@burnttofu.net> <47BFD8E9-D2AC-4FD9-84A5-CEF89653C06C@corp.arin.net> <4FDA1B92.5030706@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2012 10:13 AM, "Michael Sinatra" wrote: > > On 6/14/12 9:54 AM, John Curran wrote: > > Michael - > > > > Can you include briefly why you are opposed and in particular > > if there are changes to either than might change your view? > > > > (This helps proposal originators have a better understanding > > of the merits and concerns with their proposed changes...) > > Hi John: > > To be honest, reading through this thread has been painful, so let me be > brief (at least by my standards): > > I do not believe that legacy resources should be treated differently > from the perspective of registry policy. Note that during the time I > have been participating in ARIN, I have represented two different legacy > holders, one who has signed at LRSA (along with RSA) and the other who > hasn't signed an LRSA (but who also has RSA-covered resources). > > I do not agree with the rationale of this policy; specifically that > legacy resources are inhibiting the adoption of IPv6. Some of the > biggest and earliest adopters of IPv6 are legacy holders, particularly > USG and US EDU organizations. > > Much of what has transpired in this thread has basically made me want to > affirm my opposition to 171 and 172, so I don't think there's much that > will change my mind. > > thanks, > michael > +1 I fully agree with Michael. Cameron _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 13:53:25 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:53:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFCAA8.70001@arin.net> <4FDA1507.3060505@burnttofu.net> <47BFD8E9-D2AC-4FD9-84A5-CEF89653C06C@corp.arin.net> <4FDA1B92.5030706@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2012 10:13 AM, "Michael Sinatra" > wrote: >> >> On 6/14/12 9:54 AM, John Curran wrote: >> > Michael - >> > >> > ? Can you include briefly why you are opposed and in particular >> > ? if there are changes to either than might change your view? >> > >> > ? (This helps proposal originators have a better understanding >> > ? of the merits and concerns with their proposed changes...) >> >> Hi John: >> >> To be honest, reading through this thread has been painful, so let me be >> brief (at least by my standards): >> >> I do not believe that legacy resources should be treated differently >> from the perspective of registry policy. ?Note that during the time I >> have been participating in ARIN, I have represented two different legacy >> holders, one who has signed at LRSA (along with RSA) and the other who >> hasn't signed an LRSA (but who also has RSA-covered resources). >> >> I do not agree with the rationale of this policy; specifically that >> legacy resources are inhibiting the adoption of IPv6. ?Some of the >> biggest and earliest adopters of IPv6 are legacy holders, particularly >> USG and US EDU organizations. >> >> Much of what has transpired in this thread has basically made me want to >> affirm my opposition to 171 and 172, so I don't think there's much that >> will change my mind. >> >> thanks, >> michael >> > > +1 what he said! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From christoph.blecker at ubc.ca Thu Jun 14 14:20:05 2012 From: christoph.blecker at ubc.ca (Blecker, Christoph) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:20:05 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources In-Reply-To: <4FDA1B92.5030706@burnttofu.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFCAA8.70001@arin.net> <4FDA1507.3060505@burnttofu.net> <47BFD8E9-D2AC-4FD9-84A5-CEF89653C06C@corp.arin.net> <4FDA1B92.5030706@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAB4936@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Michael Sinatra > Sent: June-14-12 10:13 AM > To: John Curran > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and > legacy resources > > On 6/14/12 9:54 AM, John Curran wrote: > > Michael - > > > > Can you include briefly why you are opposed and in particular > > if there are changes to either than might change your view? > > > > (This helps proposal originators have a better understanding > > of the merits and concerns with their proposed changes...) > > Hi John: > > To be honest, reading through this thread has been painful, so let me be > brief (at least by my standards): > > I do not believe that legacy resources should be treated differently > from the perspective of registry policy. Note that during the time I > have been participating in ARIN, I have represented two different legacy > holders, one who has signed at LRSA (along with RSA) and the other who > hasn't signed an LRSA (but who also has RSA-covered resources). > > I do not agree with the rationale of this policy; specifically that > legacy resources are inhibiting the adoption of IPv6. Some of the > biggest and earliest adopters of IPv6 are legacy holders, particularly > USG and US EDU organizations. > > Much of what has transpired in this thread has basically made me want to > affirm my opposition to 171 and 172, so I don't think there's much that > will change my mind. > > thanks, > michael > _______________________________________________ I think these threads have been a bit painful for everyone. I echo Michael's feelings in that IPv6 adoption has little to do with legacy address holdings, being that I work for an organization with both legacy holdings and IPv6 dual stack. In my opinion, IPv4 numbers (like IPv6 numbers and ASNs) are community resources -- irrespective if they were given out before ARIN's inception or not. It's up to us as a community today to decide how they should be handled, for the good of the internet as a whole. Hopefully this can be done in a way that satisfies the reality of the business world today, but if push comes to shove, the interests of the internet at large should take precedence over those of private business. The current framework to support legacy holders seems to accomplish these goals fairly, including the existing 8.3 transfer scheme. I stand opposed to both Prop 171 and 172. Cheers, -- Christoph Blecker The University of British Columbia From mike at nationwideinc.com Thu Jun 14 14:31:27 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:31:27 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition forNRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><62C2E556EF FC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC><1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> Message-ID: <1C94305F5A3E4AA893864D6721403659@MPC> > >> Did ARIN have any agreement with Nortel which allowed Nortel to sell Bay >> Network's address space? >>If not, how did Nortel have the *legal* right to sell address space >>originally allocated to Bay Networks? >Please see NRPM 8.2. A point of clarification on 8.2. Who is eligible to make the "request" for ARIN to consider the transfer of number resources per 8.2? Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Regards, Mike From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 14 14:34:32 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:34:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition forNRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <1C94305F5A3E4AA893864D6721403659@MPC> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><62C2E556EF FC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC><1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> <1C94305F5A3E4AA893864D6721403659@MPC> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > A point of clarification on 8.2. > Who is eligible to make the "request" for ARIN to consider the transfer of number resources per 8.2? > > Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Mike - Feel free to call our registration services helpdesk if you need assistance with any request - +1.703.227.0660 Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cengel at conxeo.com Thu Jun 14 14:45:53 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:45:53 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <31F6ACCC9FBB471B9AE3DF4811E92E22@MPC> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <31F6ACCC9FBB471B9AE3DF4811E92E22@MPC> Message-ID: > Hi Chris, > > I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy holders ARE > legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space without > any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel. Mike, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure how that translates into an exception being "legally transferable". The exception exists as a status granted by a NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION as to which of it's internal policies apply to a given entity and how they apply. It's my understanding that NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS can pretty much do whatever they like in terms of setting their internal policies and the granting or withholding of statuses to members absent a court order to the contrary. Was there some sort of injunctive relief provided by the Court ordering ARIN to do something with it's database listings for that space in contravention to it's policies? Theoretically, ARIN could create a policy that you and only you must submit your needs justification in iambic pentameter in order to apply for a transfer of registration within it's listings, and unless a Court specifically instructs ARIN not to do so, it's entirely within ARIN's prerogative to enforce said requirement. In any event, my purpose was really more to discuss the rationale behind WHY things like "Grandfather Clauses" exist and why they prove useful under certain circumstances and try to relate it to the situation with legacy space. Specifically, I can see perfectly well why it's useful for ARIN to not try to force entities to RETROACTIVELY do needs justifications for space they ALREADY had obtained before needs justifications requirements were enacted, even though all new allocations from that point forward required needs justification. I can see perfectly well why it's useful for ARIN to not retract registrations from entities that don't have a signed agreements with ARIN because they obtained their space before ARIN was founded, even though all new registrations from that point forward required signing an agreement. In both cases the disruption that might be caused by not listing those allocations was far more harmful then simply recognizing that such space was already allocated and letting the allocation stand without a signed agreement or needs justification on record for it. In the case of on going transfers, ARIN already has to update it's records for that space to reflect the transfer, what's gained by allowing the transferee to go through a different process then it would have to if it were receiving non-legacy space? In terms of legal status, since ARIN has a Legal Council, I assume they have a well defined process for handling situations where a Court ruling would invalidate an existing policy or administrative procedure. So if that's happened here, I'm guessing John would have informed us about it. Christopher Engel > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Burns [mailto:mike at iptrading.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:55 PM > To: Chris Engel; 'Milton L Mueller'; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for > NRPMSection 2 - Legacy Resources > > >Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which holds > >it > > >If the argument is that needs requirements in transfers are not beneficial > >in general, while I'm personally sympathetic to that position, I believe > >that particular battle has already been fought and lost. Are you proposing > >another run at it? > > Hi Chris, > > I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy holders ARE > legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space without > any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel. > > Secondly, I watched this presentation at NANOG54, but couldn't tell what the > temperature in the room was towards treating legacy addresses as property. > http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/presentations/Monday/NANOG > _54_02_Keynote_ipv4.wmv > > My feeling is that maybe it is time for another run at removing the needs > test for legacy transfers, as the last run was an attempt to remove the > needs test from all transfers, not just legacy. > > Regards and pardon the interruption, > > Mike Burns > > From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jun 14 15:39:25 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:39:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><62C2E556EF FC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> <1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> Message-ID: <4FDA3DED.7030009@umn.edu> On 6/14/12 12:30 CDT, Mike Burns wrote: > > >>> I think these "grandfather clause" exceptions enjoyed by legacy >>> holders ARE >>> legally transferable, per Nortel selling Bay Network's address space >>> without >>> any extant agreement between ARIN and Nortel. > >> That's an very interesting conclusion, given that ARIN was present & >> concurred >> with the transfer (which we did because the recipient met requirements >> and had >> already entered into an registration agreement with ARIN), but it >> wouldn't be >> the first time someone has tried to assert such. Current practice has >> shown >> it to be otherwise; no transfers have occurred without meeting >> community policy. > > Did ARIN have any agreement with Nortel which allowed Nortel to sell Bay > Network's address space? > If not, how did Nortel have the *legal* right to sell address space > originally allocated to Bay Networks? > Chris' point was that a grandfather clause-like situation existed, and > that usually those rights are not transferable. > But in this case the legacy rights afforded to Bay Networks WERE > transferred to Nortel, whom the judge found to have the exclusive right > to transfer. What you seem to be asserting is that Legacy status is transferred with resources and the other assets of the company, as part of an M&A transfer such as envisioned in 8.2. While I'm not completely convinced of that, there may be a reasonable argument for that. However, it doesn't follow that Legacy status is also transferred with the resources independent of any other assets of the company, when a transfer occurs as part of 8.3. The difference is, the purpose of the first type of transfer is to record the change of ownership and/or name of the company, or the ownership of the assets that use the resources, but not the use of the resources per se. Where as the purpose of the second is to change the use of resources, independent of and explicitly not involving any change to the ownership of the company or any other assets. Nortel acquiring Bay, is an instance of the first type of transfer, Microsoft acquiring the resources from Nortel through the bankruptcy proceeding is an transfer of the second type. I'm sure even a judge would see the distinction in these two situations. So it might be worth discussing if an 8.2 transfer removes the Legacy status from resources or not, but it seems clear to me that 8.3 transfers do. Finally, the transfer of resources from Bay to Nortel seems completely consistent with 8.2 and probably would have happened if requested long before the bankruptcy. And, if a judge orders you to do something you would probably do anyway; you don't argue with him about it, you just do it. But you say but Nortel didn't request it. That's not true, I believe the action of bankruptcy trustee approved by a judge is legally the same thing as a company taking the action. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 14 15:50:25 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:50:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Due to the difference in dynamics between allocated and unallocated > address blocks, it's clear to me that managing allocations from the free pool > necessitated a more aggressive resource stewardship role from ARIN for > those address blocks and that same role isn't necessitated for already > allocated blocks. Agreed. > That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's > interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already allocated > resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets certain > minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address > blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in > the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a > whole to impose such requirements. Yes, but I am pretty sure they're wrong, and that it is only a matter of time before those opinions, which are based on nostalgia, inertia and faulty economics and law, change. The real question is whether ARIN anticipates changes and is pro-active, or whether it is forced into action by external events. The answer to that question is pretty obvious, so far. The ARIN "community" is happy with where it is now and repeatedly waits until action is forced on it by external developments. I fully understand why this happens. I fully understand that many people on this list sincerely believe that it is unfair or unwise to afford legacy holders transferable property rights. But by refusing to act, they are simply inviting a game of chicken, in which one legacy holder chooses to sell outside its process and ARIN retaliates by refusing to alter its whois records. At that point the staff will scramble, as it did on the Nortel deal, and we will have this discussion again, only you will have fewer options because you will be in react rather than pro-act mode. > Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result in > is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for > entities who acquire address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address > holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address > holders. Does it? I honestly thought we were just debating a definition. I know that people are reading what you say into it, but it wouldn't be the first time that waving the red flag of markets and property got list members diverted from the topic at hand. E.g., every person who has spoken out against this proposed definition has made it clear that they do so not because they disagree with the definition of legacy but because they don't want to allow legacy holders to make transfers outside of ARIN. From jrhett at netconsonance.com Thu Jun 14 16:00:58 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:00:58 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8E45B6F2-A3F1-49A7-ACD7-619FE8633F10@netconsonance.com> On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > But by refusing to act, they are simply inviting a game of chicken, in which one legacy holder chooses to sell outside its process and ARIN retaliates by refusing to alter its whois records. > At that point the staff will scramble, as it did on the Nortel deal, and we will have this discussion again, only you will have fewer options because you will be in react rather than pro-act mode. You are convinced there is a game of chicken to play. Many others, including those who have been involved with legal actions to date, say there is no game of chicken. As Paul said, no visible wings on this pig. Not a single person has supported you on this, Milton. Please let it go. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 14 16:30:45 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:30:45 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8E45B6F2-A3F1-49A7-ACD7-619FE8633F10@netconsonance.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8E45B6F2-A3F1-49A7-ACD7-619FE8633F10@netconsonance.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21890A3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com] You are convinced there is a game of chicken to play. Many others, including those who have been involved with legal actions to date, say there is no game of chicken. No need to debate it; it will either happen or it won't. But this is a great demonstration of what I said about the complacency of the ARIN "community". Just a perfect example, including the smug tone. Not a single person has supported you on this, Milton. Please let it go. The dialogue continued because of the interactions with Chris Engel and Dan Alexander. Just delete my messages if they are too difficult for you. And hey, it's good to know that Chris, Mike, Marty and William don't count as people in your book. Just love the sense of "community" here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at nationwideinc.com Thu Jun 14 16:39:41 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:39:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21890A3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><855077AC3D 7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><8E45B6F2-A3F1-49A7-ACD7-619FE8633F10@netconsonance.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21890A3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <913390B623A34FC0B9799D17906F72E4@MPC> lol. I think I never expressed support. I support Prop-172. Regards, Mike Not a single person has supported you on this, Milton. Please let it go. The dialogue continued because of the interactions with Chris Engel and Dan Alexander. Just delete my messages if they are too difficult for you. And hey, it's good to know that Chris, Mike, Marty and William don't count as people in your book. Just love the sense of "community" here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tvest at eyeconomics.com Thu Jun 14 17:04:54 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:04:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21890A3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8E45B6F2-A3F1-49A7-ACD7-619FE8633F10@netconsonance.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21890A3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93D853C6-2AC4-4833-B986-B54DC9EB0AD2@eyeconomics.com> On Jun 14, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Just love the sense of "community" here. Hi Milton, I'm trying *very* hard, for the benefit of other ppml readers, to suppress my reflexive reaction to profoundly ironic statements. But it would be nice if you would at least try to meet me half-way. Sincerely, TV From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 17:25:43 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:25:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 and ARIN-prop-172 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: Firstly, I'll note that this thread is really more about ARIN-prop-171 than ARIN-prop-172 at this point. The fact that we can't keep the two issues separate on PPML is IMO a pretty good argument that we should merge the two into a single draft policy. Does anyone think they are really two separate issues that need to be treated independently? Is there any reason we'd want to adopt a definition of legacy resources without adopting something along the lines of 171, for example? On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > > That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's > interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already > allocated resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets > certain minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address > blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in > the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a > whole to impose such requirements. While that belief is certainly not > universal among the community (and I'm not a big fan of it myself), there > appears to have been enough consensus on it that it was enacted into policy. > Agreed. > Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result > in is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for > entities who acquire address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address > holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address > holders. I'm failing to see what the rationale for that difference in > treatment is? What is it that makes those policy requirements useful/fair > to apply in one case and not useful/fair in the other? It's strikes me that > sort of inequal application of policies/requirements isn't a great thing > for the community as a whole. > Agreed. I fully understand why the ORIGIONAL holders of legacy address space were > treated differently in regards the resources they ALREADY had. Not only was > there the uncertain legal question of attempting to impose conditions on > entities ARIN had no contractual relationship with, but more importantly > there was the consideration of unnecessary disruptiveness in attempting to > change the conditions under which those entities had been holding those > resources for years. In other words, if entity A was widely recognized as > holding a particular block for years before ARIN, it's alot more > harmful/disruptive to try to revoke that recognition then it is to allow it > an exemption to certain requirements imposed upon new registrants. The > paradigm is not much different then the "Grandfather Clauses" which exist > in certain laws/regulations. The rationale behind those is to limit the > harm/disruption of imposing change on what had been upto that point > relatively stable/well functioning systems whi > le still allowing changes to be introduced which are perceived as > necessary/beneficial to the continuing function of the system as a whole. > Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which > holds it and the reasoning for that would seem to apply here, the > disruption it is intended to avoid is already imposed by the act of > transfer itself, no additional harm/disruption is realized by declining to > allow the transfer of the exemption along with the resource, and indeed if > the policy requirements are actually well founded and beneficial, > perpetuating the exemption would impose harm in itself. So again, I fail to > see why requiring a transferee to justify need (for example) when receiving > non-legacy space is a good thing and suddenly turns into a bad thing when > the space is legacy? So here's a stab at what I think should happen: - 8.2 transfers should not require a change in the status of the addresses being held, except to require that status to be contractually codified (by the recipient signing an LRSA as a condition of updating ARIN's database). In particular, the LRSA doesn't make the addresses it covers subject to utilization requirements. - We may be able to add some sort of grandfather clause to allow fewer restrictions on the 8.3 transfer of legacy addresses (and a proper definition of such addresses). However, I don't believe that such exceptions should themselves be transitive. That is to say, the recipient of an 8.3 transfer needs to sign an RSA and become subject to all of the policies in the NRPM. - I could see an argument for exempting an 8.3 transfer recipient from needs justification on the initial transfer, but IMO that exemption would need to be time-limited, to perhaps a year, after which time the recipient would be subject to all ARIN policies. I think the underlying motivation here is to encourage holders of legacy allocations who wish to transfer their space to do so in a way that keep ARIN's database up-to-date. In some cases, that may be an easier sell if some restrictions are relaxed. The supporters of ARIN-prop-171 may not agree, but I would argue that a second goal is to encourage such transfers to occur in such a way that the addresses being transferred are no longer considered legacy after the transfer is complete. -Scott (speaking only for myself) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 17:47:47 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:47:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> Message-ID: Martin/All, In light of your comments below from the "Definition of a legacy resource" thread, and the discussion we've seen since posting version 2.0 of this proposal, I thought I'd throw out some language that might address some of the concerns while still defining legacy addresses appropriately. See below. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > The proposal originator revised the proposal. > > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 2.0 > > Date: 6 June 2012 > > Proposal type: NEW > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > satisfies both of the following two criteria: > > (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet > Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's > inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the > United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and > > (2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) > has not expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address > or Autonomous System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement > with an RIR or the written consent of the original legacy holder (or > its legal successor or assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent > allocation and assignment of the IPv4 address or Autonomous System > Number to another entity or individual in accordance with the RIR's > number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. > > > Rationale: > > The NRPM does not include a definition of a legacy resource. The ARIN > LRSA contains a possibly reasonable definition of a legacy resource > which is wholly included in this definition with an addendum after > "1997". > > Through a variety of publicly reported transactions and discussions > amongst the community we have learned that there are two distinct > types of addresses, those that are subject to their agreements which > are typically for services with an RIR and those that are not. This > proposal offers a definition that clarifies that distinction and for > the purpose of establishing a basis for policy development supporting > legal process (bankruptcy, estates, et. al.) for un obligated legacy > resources. > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > >> Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:31 AM > >> To: Scott Leibrand > >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Definition of a legacy resource? > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Scott Leibrand > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Martin Hannigan > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Does everyone agree that this is an adequate definition of a legacy > >> address? > >> >> > >> >> "A legacy number resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System > >> >> number that was issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its > >> >> predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997." > >> > > >> > And has not been returned, reclaimed, revoked, or transferred. > >> > >> Ok. > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Once a holder signs the LRSA, that legacy status is now > historical only. Technically speaking, they are not differentiated any > longer. It seems to make sense that the definition be clear in that > respect so using "contracted" as the delineation would appear to make > sense. > > Best, > > -M< > > Policy statement (section 1 is unchanged from ARIN-prop-172 version 2.0; section 2 is rewritten): A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that satisfies both of the following two criteria: (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and (2) has not been returned or transferred by the original legacy holder (or its legal successor), has not been reclaimed or revoked by the issuing Registry or its legal successor, and is not covered by a Registration Services Agreement (other than a Legacy Registration Services Agreement). Thoughts? -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlindsey at lb3law.com Thu Jun 14 18:01:44 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:01:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> Policy Proposal Name - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements Proposal Originator - Marc Lindsey Proposal Version - 1 Date - June 14, 2012 Policy type - Modification to existing policy Policy term - Permanent Policy Statement Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the following: 8.1 Principles ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating registration transfer requests. 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current registrant or its successor or assign (the "new entity"), ARIN will transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity's justification of need for the transferred numbers. If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any of form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time "Legacy Record Change Fee" as set forth in the fee schedule unless the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the applicable registration fees. [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of "legacy number" from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record Change fee is TBD] Rationale - The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN's existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company's IP addressing scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities directly involved. ARIN's discretionary approval of transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records. Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. Timetable for implementation - Immediate Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-2564 Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com Website: www.lb3law.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Thu Jun 14 17:54:14 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:54:14 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDA3DED.7030009@umn.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><62C2E556EF FC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> <1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> <4FDA3DED.7030009@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FDA5D86.901@matthew.at> On 6/14/2012 8:39 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > What you seem to be asserting is that Legacy status is transferred > with resources and the other assets of the company, as part of an M&A > transfer such as envisioned in 8.2. While I'm not completely > convinced of that, there may be a reasonable argument for that. > > However, it doesn't follow that Legacy status is also transferred with > the resources independent of any other assets of the company, when a > transfer occurs as part of 8.3. > > The difference is, the purpose of the first type of transfer is to > record the change of ownership and/or name of the company, or the > ownership of the assets that use the resources, but not the use of the > resources per se. Where as the purpose of the second is to change the > use of resources, independent of and explicitly not involving any > change to the ownership of the company or any other assets. > > Nortel acquiring Bay, is an instance of the first type of transfer, > Microsoft acquiring the resources from Nortel through the bankruptcy > proceeding is an transfer of the second type. > > I'm sure even a judge would see the distinction in these two situations. > > So it might be worth discussing if an 8.2 transfer removes the Legacy > status from resources or not, but it seems clear to me that 8.3 > transfers do. Right. And what we do know from discussions on this list many months ago (which isn't everything) of the Microsoft-Nortel transaction is that the recipient was able to sign a LRSA and not "The RSA". This is why I put forth a proposal at that time to clarify "RSA" to mean "any RSA" and not "the one and only unmodified RSA". So *something* was "Legacy" about the transfer. Matthew Kaufman From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 18:20:45 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:20:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> Message-ID: Marc, Thanks for jumping in as a proposal originator. One clarification question inline... On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > *Policy Proposal Name* ? Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements**** > > *Proposal Originator* ? Marc Lindsey **** > > *Proposal Version* - 1**** > > *Date* ? June 14, 2012**** > > *Policy type* ? Modification to existing policy**** > > *Policy term* - Permanent**** > > *Policy Statement***** > Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the > following:**** > > *8.1 Principles * > > ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number > resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this > Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating > registration transfer requests.**** > 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions**** > > When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current > registrant or its successor or assign (the ?new entity?), ARIN will > transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon > receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources > from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, > reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of > acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall > not be contingent upon the new entity?s justification of need for the > transferred numbers. **** > > If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new > entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the > transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. **** > > If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not > be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any of form > of written agreement with ARIN. > What do you have in mind here that would fit under "any ... form of written agreement with ARIN"? I presume this would only apply if ARIN chooses to develop or negotiate such agreements. Are you envisioning that ARIN should create a new agreement separate from the LRSA? If so, what kind of agreement would that be? Thanks, Scott > For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall > assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time ?Legacy Record Change Fee? > as set forth in the fee schedule *unless* the new entity elects, in its > discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers > and pays the applicable registration fees.**** > > [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of ?legacy number? from > proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record > Change fee is TBD] **** > > *Rationale *? The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy > holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist > with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities > that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records > because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain > and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their > lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor > (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify > their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN?s > existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA > (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to > audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. **** > > For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and > uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company?s IP addressing scheme as > part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities > directly involved. ARIN?s discretionary approval of transfers in this > context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities > concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved > by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records.**** > > Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update > the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal > corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the > WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. **** > > *Timetable for implementation* - Immediate**** > > ** ** > > *Marc Lindsey* > > Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP**** > > 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900**** > > Washington, DC 20036**** > > Phone: (202) 857-2564**** > > Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com **** > > Website: www.lb3law.com**** > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cboyd at gizmopartners.com Thu Jun 14 18:27:07 2012 From: cboyd at gizmopartners.com (Chris Boyd) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:27:07 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <253D0101-D700-4DD2-94A8-9907DA911C2C@gizmopartners.com> On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. So if Company A buys Company B, Company A has to pey full boat fees just to update a few database entries for the number resources assigned to B? Seems a bit harsh to me, especially if both companies already have ARIN business relationships. --Chris From mlindsey at lb3law.com Thu Jun 14 19:23:53 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:23:53 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA7@lb3ex01> Hello Scott: You asked about the following sentence in my proposal: If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity signing an RSA, LRSA or any other form of written agreement with ARIN. Your specific questions were: With respect to my proposed sentence above, you asked: "What do you have in mind here that would fit under "any ... form of written agreement with ARIN"? ?I presume this would only apply if ARIN chooses to develop or negotiate such agreements. ?Are you envisioning that ARIN should create a new agreement separate from the LRSA? ?If so, what kind of agreement would that be?" Yes - sort of. My primary purpose for the sentence is to make the point that, as a matter of policy and not operations, no written agreements would be required to cause an update to the WHOIS database for M&A transfers involving legacy numbers. This would apply regardless of whether the agreement was in the form of the RSA, LRSA or any future variant/alternative form agreement. I'm not, with this proposal, suggesting that ARIN create a new agreement; But I'm anticipating that could happen. I also noticed an ambiguity that I should fix with a new version. -Marc Lindsey From mlindsey at lb3law.com Thu Jun 14 19:26:43 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:26:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal v2 - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA8@lb3ex01> Policy Proposal Name - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements Proposal Originator - Marc Lindsey Proposal Version - 2 Date - June 14, 2012 Policy type - Modification to existing policy Policy term - Permanent Policy Statement Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the following: 8.1 Principles ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating registration transfer requests. 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current registrant or its successor or assign (the "new entity"), ARIN will transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity's justification of need for the transferred numbers. If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any other form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time "Legacy Record Change Fee" as set forth in the fee schedule unless the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the applicable registration fees. [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of "legacy number" from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record Change fee is TBD] Rationale - The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN's existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company's IP addressing scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities directly involved. ARIN's discretionary approval of transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records. Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. Timetable for implementation - Immediate Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-2564 Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com Website: www.lb3law.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jun 14 20:10:17 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 19:10:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] High Level Plan for Clarifying Legacy Resource Policy Message-ID: <4FDA7D69.2000403@umn.edu> From the discussions we have had I thought it might be a good idea to put down a high level plan for clarifying Legacy Resource Policy. What does the community think? It is providing in an outline form, dashed items are my initial comments Is there anything missing? There seems to be little community support for eliminating or waving needs assessment for recipients of transfer of resources Legacy or otherwise. So, I'm not sure those part of 171 are useful to create policy that can gain consensus. I'll leave at that an not comment more. ------ A. Define Legacy Resources - I believe 172 with Scott's mods is a good start on this B. Policies applies to all resources allocated by ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, unless transferred to the control of another RIR. - I think this is a given from NRPM Section 1. But should be clearly stated and probably just added as a clarification to Section 1. C. Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use - Essentially already policy via the LRSA terms, lets just clearly make it policy. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. D. ARIN needs a clear policy mechanism to reclaim Legacy Resources from defunct organization that are not otherwise covered by a signed RSA or LRSA, resources covered by RSA or LRSA have such a mechanism, non-payment of fees results in recovery. This needs proper protections, like commercially reasonable efforts to find a successor organization or a trustee of its estate, etc... NOTE: However, all resource holders have allows had a clear obligation to maintain valid POC information. So at one level it is an organizations responsibility to remain contactable by ARIN. - This will be a lot of work, but we GOT to do it. We've needed to do it for a long while. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. E. Chain of Custody Validation - This needs some work but whats in 171 might be a starting point. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. F. M&A transfers (8.2) maintain legacy status - I think Marc's proposal is a good start on this, but I make comment in that thread G. Other transfers (8.3) do not maintain legacy status - Could be added to Marc's proposal or could be a new one. But it should be clearly stated. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 20:18:37 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:18:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] High Level Plan for Clarifying Legacy Resource Policy In-Reply-To: <4FDA7D69.2000403@umn.edu> References: <4FDA7D69.2000403@umn.edu> Message-ID: Generally, D is a non starter due to legal issues. , but it's probably fixable. This would be a good start. We have proposals on deck. Do we accept onto tbhe AC docket to work? I believe this accepting would be appropriate based on discussion volumes. Best Marty On Thursday, June 14, 2012, David Farmer wrote: > From the discussions we have had I thought it might be a good idea to put > down a high level plan for clarifying Legacy Resource Policy. What does > the community think? > > It is providing in an outline form, dashed items are my initial comments > > Is there anything missing? > > There seems to be little community support for eliminating or waving needs > assessment for recipients of transfer of resources Legacy or otherwise. > So, I'm not sure those part of 171 are useful to create policy that can > gain consensus. I'll leave at that an not comment more. > > ------ > > A. Define Legacy Resources > > - I believe 172 with Scott's mods is a good start on this > > B. Policies applies to all resources allocated by ARIN or one of its > predecessor registries, unless transferred to the control of another RIR. > > - I think this is a given from NRPM Section 1. But should be clearly > stated and probably just added as a clarification to Section 1. > > C. Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use > > - Essentially already policy via the LRSA terms, lets just clearly make it > policy. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. > > D. ARIN needs a clear policy mechanism to reclaim Legacy Resources from > defunct organization that are not otherwise covered by a signed RSA or > LRSA, resources covered by RSA or LRSA have such a mechanism, non-payment > of fees results in recovery. This needs proper protections, like > commercially reasonable efforts to find a successor organization or a > trustee of its estate, etc... NOTE: However, all resource holders have > allows had a clear obligation to maintain valid POC information. So at one > level it is an organizations responsibility to remain contactable by ARIN. > > - This will be a lot of work, but we GOT to do it. We've needed to do it > for a long while. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. > > E. Chain of Custody Validation > > - This needs some work but whats in 171 might be a starting point. > Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. > > F. M&A transfers (8.2) maintain legacy status > > - I think Marc's proposal is a good start on this, but I make comment in > that thread > > G. Other transfers (8.3) do not maintain legacy status > > - Could be added to Marc's proposal or could be a new one. But it should > be clearly stated. > > -- > ==============================**================= > David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > ==============================**================= > > ______________________________**_________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/**listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- Sent via a mobile device -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 14 20:45:49 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:45:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] High Level Plan for Clarifying Legacy Resource Policy In-Reply-To: References: <4FDA7D69.2000403@umn.edu> Message-ID: <642B5E58-418E-4EF8-992D-BE542E0FB4B8@corp.arin.net> On Jun 14, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Generally, D is a non starter due to legal issues. , but it's probably fixable. Right now we're extremely careful in this area, but if there's a clear consensus policy which has appropriate protections, then it should be solvable. To some extent, the existence of a transfer market (even under the present limits) does provide incentives to finding the appropriate party (if any) presuming that there is clear & ample notice given. Definitely something for the community to discuss. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 21:03:21 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:03:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 6/14/12, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is >> in the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a >> whole to impose such requirements. > Yes, but I am pretty sure they're wrong, and that it is only a matter of > time before those opinions, which are based on nostalgia, inertia and faulty > economics and law, change. [snip] What makes you so sure that they would be wrong? It sounds like you are outright hostile to the community. > The real question is whether ARIN anticipates changes and is pro-active, or > whether it is forced into action by external events. Argumentum ad baculum is not a very compelling reason to go about willy-nilly adopting policies to abandon stewardship or redesign address assignment to cater to economic whims. > I fully understand why this happens. > I fully understand that many people on this list sincerely believe that it > is unfair or unwise to afford legacy holders transferable property rights. It is both unwise and also unfair to grant legacy holders additional rights which they do not have and which others are not granted. > But by refusing to act, they are simply inviting a game of chicken, in which > one legacy holder chooses to sell outside its process and ARIN retaliates by > refusing to alter its whois records. ARIN would have the option of revoking resources once it were demonstrated that the legacy holder was not using them, and that someone else was. It is not current policy to do so, but ARIN has that option; it is therefore likely that a "buyer" actually intending to use the resources, would find the lack of WHOIS updating or ability to register their contacts and establish their reverse DNS server mappings. It would certainly cause issues getting upstreams to announce those prefixes; a valid WHOIS listing is generally a pre-requisite. -- -JH From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jun 14 21:14:45 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:14:45 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal v2 - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA8@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA8@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <4FDA8C85.7060700@umn.edu> Thanks for doing this; A few things inline; On 6/14/12 18:26 CDT, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > *Policy Proposal Name*? Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements > > *Proposal Originator*? Marc Lindsey > > *Proposal Version*- 2 > > *Date*? June 14, 2012 > > *Policy type*? Modification to existing policy > > *Policy term*- Permanent > > *Policy Statement* > > > Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them > with the following: > > *8.1 Principles * > > ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number > resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this > Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating > registration transfer requests. I don't think we want to eliminate all of the Principles in the current 8.1 that you did; for example clarifying that just because someone is listed as a POC doesn't mean that they have the authority to transfer resource is probably a good idea. However, eliminating the current reference to the RSA might be a good idea given the intent of this policy. So could I suggest you review the current principles and add at least some of them back in, even if you rewrite some of them. Also, I'm not sure if it should be "WHOIS database" or "Directory Service" from a policy perspective. Also, this is the place for ideas like "binding written agreement" and "written consent of the resource holder" if you feel the need, and not in the definition of Legacy Resource. > 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions > > When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current > registrant or its successor or assign (the ?new entity?), ARIN will > transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity > upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the > resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, > acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an > up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under > this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity?s > justification of need for the transferred numbers. > > If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new > entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering > the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. > > If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall > not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any > other form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy > numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity > shall pay, a one-time ?Legacy Record Change Fee? as set forth in the fee > schedule /unless/ the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter > into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the > applicable registration fees. I understand what your getting at, but generally the word "fee" is taboo in ARIN policy. I need to think about your use of it here, but if you can find a way to make it go away, that might be better. The use of it in the second paragraph night be OK. But specifying "Legacy Record Change Fee" is probably going over the line, but again I understand why you are going their and agree with the idea. I'll think about it more. > [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of ?legacy number? from > proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record > Change fee is TBD] > > *Rationale *? The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy > holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to > assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some > entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the > WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their > ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, > legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are > the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they > then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they > obtained prior to ARIN?s existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, > they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their > rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under > then-current policy. > > For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome > and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company?s IP addressing > scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of > the entities directly involved. ARIN?s discretionary approval of > transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary > contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update > request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update > the records. > > Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update > the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect > normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the > accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. I agree that the current language regarding evaluation of resources creates a significant disincentive for Legacy Holders to properly update records through M&A transfers. And allowing Legacy Holders to maintain Legacy status through an M&A transfer provides a proper incentive for them to update the records, which is very important. > *Timetable for implementation*- Immediate I think this will be useful and might be able to get community consensus. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jun 14 21:39:34 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:39:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDA5D86.901@matthew.at> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><62C2E556EF FC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> <1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> <4FDA3DED.7030009@umn.edu> <4FDA5D86.901@matthew.at> Message-ID: <4FDA9256.7090408@umn.edu> On 6/14/12 16:54 CDT, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/14/2012 8:39 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> >> So it might be worth discussing if an 8.2 transfer removes the Legacy >> status from resources or not, but it seems clear to me that 8.3 >> transfers do. > > Right. And what we do know from discussions on this list many months ago > (which isn't everything) of the Microsoft-Nortel transaction is that the > recipient was able to sign a LRSA and not "The RSA". This is why I put > forth a proposal at that time to clarify "RSA" to mean "any RSA" and not > "the one and only unmodified RSA". > > So *something* was "Legacy" about the transfer. I think the problem with your proposal was that it dealt with the business issues of what contracts ARIN should execute and didn't deal with the problem as a policy issue. The High Level Plan I sent out and what got started the discussion of 172 is to create policy that defines what Legacy is and how it flows, etc... Leaving the business issue of contracts to legal counsel, staff, and the board. We need to deal with it in the policy realm and not the contract and business realm. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 15 00:53:04 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:53:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201206150453.q5F4r4Fr012704@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 117 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 15 00:53:04 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 15.38% | 18 | 11.51% | 120821 | jcurran at arin.net 11.11% | 13 | 11.36% | 119304 | mike at nationwideinc.com 11.11% | 13 | 10.50% | 110235 | mueller at syr.edu 6.84% | 8 | 8.21% | 86245 | owen at delong.com 5.13% | 6 | 5.13% | 53836 | farmer at umn.edu 5.13% | 6 | 3.94% | 41370 | bill at herrin.us 4.27% | 5 | 4.43% | 46546 | tvest at eyeconomics.com 4.27% | 5 | 3.67% | 38581 | jrhett at netconsonance.com 2.56% | 3 | 5.30% | 55689 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 3.42% | 4 | 4.35% | 45676 | cengel at conxeo.com 2.56% | 3 | 4.84% | 50785 | mlindsey at lb3law.com 3.42% | 4 | 3.02% | 31749 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net 3.42% | 4 | 2.92% | 30642 | paul at redbarn.org 3.42% | 4 | 2.57% | 27013 | mysidia at gmail.com 2.56% | 3 | 3.32% | 34907 | hannigan at gmail.com 2.56% | 3 | 2.37% | 24916 | astrodog at gmx.com 0.85% | 1 | 2.19% | 22949 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 1.71% | 2 | 1.28% | 13452 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.71% | 2 | 1.13% | 11910 | john at egh.com 1.71% | 2 | 1.01% | 10569 | info at arin.net 0.85% | 1 | 1.79% | 18843 | stephen at sprunk.org 0.85% | 1 | 0.95% | 10001 | cb.list6 at gmail.com 0.85% | 1 | 0.82% | 8604 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com 0.85% | 1 | 0.79% | 8284 | scott at sonic.net 0.85% | 1 | 0.76% | 8023 | christoph.blecker at ubc.ca 0.85% | 1 | 0.69% | 7246 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.85% | 1 | 0.63% | 6644 | matthew at matthew.at 0.85% | 1 | 0.50% | 5269 | cboyd at gizmopartners.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 117 |100.00% | 1050109 | Total From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 04:14:12 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:14:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 and ARIN-prop-172 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3AE893BD-9AA9-4EA9-BAD7-BB435734AC6F@delong.com> On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Firstly, I'll note that this thread is really more about ARIN-prop-171 than ARIN-prop-172 at this point. The fact that we can't keep the two issues separate on PPML is IMO a pretty good argument that we should merge the two into a single draft policy. Does anyone think they are really two separate issues that need to be treated independently? Is there any reason we'd want to adopt a definition of legacy resources without adopting something along the lines of 171, for example? > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > > That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already allocated resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets certain minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a whole to impose such requirements. While that belief is certainly not universal among the community (and I'm not a big fan of it myself), there appears to have been enough consensus on it that it was enacted into policy. > > Agreed. > > Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result in is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for entities who acquire address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address holders. I'm failing to see what the rationale for that difference in treatment is? What is it that makes those policy requirements useful/fair to apply in one case and not useful/fair in the other? It's strikes me that sort of inequal application of policies/requirements isn't a great thing for the community as a whole. > > Agreed. > > I fully understand why the ORIGIONAL holders of legacy address space were treated differently in regards the resources they ALREADY had. Not only was there the uncertain legal question of attempting to impose conditions on entities ARIN had no contractual relationship with, but more importantly there was the consideration of unnecessary disruptiveness in attempting to change the conditions under which those entities had been holding those resources for years. In other words, if entity A was widely recognized as holding a particular block for years before ARIN, it's alot more harmful/disruptive to try to revoke that recognition then it is to allow it an exemption to certain requirements imposed upon new registrants. The paradigm is not much different then the "Grandfather Clauses" which exist in certain laws/regulations. The rationale behind those is to limit the harm/disruption of imposing change on what had been upto that point relatively stable/well functioning systems whi > le still allowing changes to be introduced which are perceived as necessary/beneficial to the continuing function of the system as a whole. Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which holds it and the reasoning for that would seem to apply here, the disruption it is intended to avoid is already imposed by the act of transfer itself, no additional harm/disruption is realized by declining to allow the transfer of the exemption along with the resource, and indeed if the policy requirements are actually well founded and beneficial, perpetuating the exemption would impose harm in itself. So again, I fail to see why requiring a transferee to justify need (for example) when receiving non-legacy space is a good thing and suddenly turns into a bad thing when the space is legacy? > > So here's a stab at what I think should happen: > > - 8.2 transfers should not require a change in the status of the addresses being held, except to require that status to be contractually codified (by the recipient signing an LRSA as a condition of updating ARIN's database). In particular, the LRSA doesn't make the addresses it covers subject to utilization requirements. I have mixed feelings about this, but I certainly welcome further input from the community on this as it is a new subject not previously discussed. > - We may be able to add some sort of grandfather clause to allow fewer restrictions on the 8.3 transfer of legacy addresses (and a proper definition of such addresses). However, I don't believe that such exceptions should themselves be transitive. That is to say, the recipient of an 8.3 transfer needs to sign an RSA and become subject to all of the policies in the NRPM. I would absolutely oppose this. Once resources are transferred from 8.3, their status should be no different than if they were returned to ARIN and subsequently issued to another organization in two unrelated transactions. > - I could see an argument for exempting an 8.3 transfer recipient from needs justification on the initial transfer, but IMO that exemption would need to be time-limited, to perhaps a year, after which time the recipient would be subject to all ARIN policies. I would absolutely oppose this as well for the same reasons. There is no reason whatsoever to special case these transfers in such a manner and it is not fair to other resource holders or the community in general to do so. > I think the underlying motivation here is to encourage holders of legacy allocations who wish to transfer their space to do so in a way that keep ARIN's database up-to-date. In some cases, that may be an easier sell if some restrictions are relaxed. The supporters of ARIN-prop-171 may not agree, but I would argue that a second goal is to encourage such transfers to occur in such a way that the addresses being transferred are no longer considered legacy after the transfer is complete. I think that the combination of RPKI and the desire to have cooperating ISPs be willing to carry the routes is more than enough motivation here. I do not believe that there is a need to grant further special treatment and I would oppose doing so. This would be one more step towards turning ARIN from consensus driven policy towards merely being an auction house. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 04:25:32 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:25:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <78551085-EC48-4ABB-BA16-A2A11CF0B3EF@delong.com> Opposed as written. Removal of the needs test from section 8.2 is contrary to the interests of the community. I do like the provision offered in 8.2 subparagraph 3, but I see no reason to use LRSA there instead of RSA. I do not like placing the dependency on the current text of 172 as that definition is fundamentally flawed and the tremendous opposition to that proposal expressed by the community to date leads me to believe that said definition is unlikely to become policy. I would suggest, instead, that the proposal be modified as follows: Unless a definition of legacy resource has already been added to section 2, the following shall be added to section 2: [insert your chosen definition of legacy resource here] As to the rationale... Merely notifying ARIN does not put their ability to retain and use the resources at risk. Transferring them outside of ARIN policy places them at risk. Notifying ARIN merly calls ARIN's attention to the fact, which is, admittedly increasing the risk. However, I still do not buy the theory that just because people might rob banks, we should make bank robbery legal. Just because people might transfer outside of ARIN policy and fail to record those transfers with ARIN does not mean that we should modify our policy to permit such transfers. Owen On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > Policy Proposal Name ? Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements > Proposal Originator ? Marc Lindsey > Proposal Version - 1 > Date ? June 14, 2012 > Policy type ? Modification to existing policy > Policy term - Permanent > Policy Statement > Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the following: > > 8.1 Principles > > ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating registration transfer requests. > > 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions > > When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current registrant or its successor or assign (the ?new entity?), ARIN will transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity?s justification of need for the transferred numbers. > > If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. > > If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any of form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time ?Legacy Record Change Fee? as set forth in the fee schedule unless the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the applicable registration fees. > > [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of ?legacy number? from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record Change fee is TBD] > > Rationale ? The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN?s existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. > For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company?s IP addressing scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities directly involved. ARIN?s discretionary approval of transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records. > Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. > Timetable for implementation - Immediate > > Marc Lindsey > Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP > 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 > Washington, DC 20036 > Phone: (202) 857-2564 > Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com > Website: www.lb3law.com > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 04:33:53 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:33:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] High Level Plan for Clarifying Legacy Resource Policy In-Reply-To: <4FDA7D69.2000403@umn.edu> References: <4FDA7D69.2000403@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:10 PM, David Farmer wrote: > From the discussions we have had I thought it might be a good idea to put down a high level plan for clarifying Legacy Resource Policy. What does the community think? > > It is providing in an outline form, dashed items are my initial comments > > Is there anything missing? > > There seems to be little community support for eliminating or waving needs assessment for recipients of transfer of resources Legacy or otherwise. So, I'm not sure those part of 171 are useful to create policy that can gain consensus. I'll leave at that an not comment more. > > ------ > > A. Define Legacy Resources > > - I believe 172 with Scott's mods is a good start on this > > B. Policies applies to all resources allocated by ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, unless transferred to the control of another RIR. > > - I think this is a given from NRPM Section 1. But should be clearly stated and probably just added as a clarification to Section 1. > > C. Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use > > - Essentially already policy via the LRSA terms, lets just clearly make it policy. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. No. The fact that you get this bonus with your signature of an LRSA is one of the key carrots available to ARIN to induce LRSA signatures. No LRSA, no guarantee. > D. ARIN needs a clear policy mechanism to reclaim Legacy Resources from defunct organization that are not otherwise covered by a signed RSA or LRSA, resources covered by RSA or LRSA have such a mechanism, non-payment of fees results in recovery. This needs proper protections, like commercially reasonable efforts to find a successor organization or a trustee of its estate, etc... NOTE: However, all resource holders have allows had a clear obligation to maintain valid POC information. So at one level it is an organizations responsibility to remain contactable by ARIN. This should, however, also include a provision that if ARIN discovers that the fees are getting paid by a third party and the original registrant is defunct, the resources are subject to immediate reclamation. > - This will be a lot of work, but we GOT to do it. We've needed to do it for a long while. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. I think it's pretty well covered in section 12 already, but, if anything, expanding on section 12 would be the best place to do this IMHO. I'm not sure that the policy needs to be legacy specific as it may be desirable to reclaim non-legacy resources from defunct organization at a point prior to the next billing cycle. > E. Chain of Custody Validation > > - This needs some work but whats in 171 might be a starting point. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. Should not be legacy-specific. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 04:43:18 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:43:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDA3DED.7030009@umn.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>< 855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><62C2E556EF FC4D0CB89A31FFB0FA2849@MPC> <1FA4994D772146C0B337063F236EA697@MPC> <4FDA3DED.7030009@umn.edu> Message-ID: <5CA233D3-8028-41C7-B810-EEA90025804A@delong.com> > > What you seem to be asserting is that Legacy status is transferred with resources and the other assets of the company, as part of an M&A transfer such as envisioned in 8.2. While I'm not completely convinced of that, there may be a reasonable argument for that. > > However, it doesn't follow that Legacy status is also transferred with the resources independent of any other assets of the company, when a transfer occurs as part of 8.3. > > The difference is, the purpose of the first type of transfer is to record the change of ownership and/or name of the company, or the ownership of the assets that use the resources, but not the use of the resources per se. Where as the purpose of the second is to change the use of resources, independent of and explicitly not involving any change to the ownership of the company or any other assets. > > Nortel acquiring Bay, is an instance of the first type of transfer, Microsoft acquiring the resources from Nortel through the bankruptcy proceeding is an transfer of the second type. > > I'm sure even a judge would see the distinction in these two situations. > > So it might be worth discussing if an 8.2 transfer removes the Legacy status from resources or not, but it seems clear to me that 8.3 transfers do. > > Finally, the transfer of resources from Bay to Nortel seems completely consistent with 8.2 and probably would have happened if requested long before the bankruptcy. And, if a judge orders you to do something you would probably do anyway; you don't argue with him about it, you just do it. But you say but Nortel didn't request it. That's not true, I believe the action of bankruptcy trustee approved by a judge is legally the same thing as a company taking the action. Before the meaning of 8.3 was emasculated by creative interpretation and subsequently taken out of the AC's hands by fiat of the board determining that this was an operational and not a policy question, it was the very clear intent of the community and the AC that an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3 and that only a standard RSA would be permitted. I understand the reasons that this interpretation was made and believe that it was necessary, so I am not actually seeking to criticize ARIN staff or the board for doing so. However, it is certainly the intent of the policy that legacy status not be transferrable under 8.3 to whatever extent policy can specify that as that was certainly the clear intent of the community during the development of said policy. As such, I believe that ARIN should, as an operational matter, seek to carry that intent out to the greatest extent possible and reasonably believe that they have done so to this point. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 04:50:16 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:50:16 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> Due to the difference in dynamics between allocated and unallocated >> address blocks, it's clear to me that managing allocations from the free pool >> necessitated a more aggressive resource stewardship role from ARIN for >> those address blocks and that same role isn't necessitated for already >> allocated blocks. > > Agreed. > >> That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's >> interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already allocated >> resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets certain >> minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address >> blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in >> the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a >> whole to impose such requirements. > > Yes, but I am pretty sure they're wrong, and that it is only a matter of time before those opinions, which are based on nostalgia, inertia and faulty economics and law, change. No matter how many different ways you say this, the reality is that just because we don't agree with you does not make us wrong. Continuing to say otherwise over and over doesn't make it accurate. > The real question is whether ARIN anticipates changes and is pro-active, or whether it is forced into action by external events. > The answer to that question is pretty obvious, so far. > The ARIN "community" is happy with where it is now and repeatedly waits until action is forced on it by external developments. As a general rule, when you are faced with a good situation and some chance that it could turn bad, you seek to do whatever you can to keep the situation good and do not seek to accelerate turning it bad. As such, yes, I agree with you about your last sentence. We do not seek to apply bad policies to number resources until we are forced to do so by external developments. I do, however, find it interesting that you appear to be claiming this is a bad thing. > I fully understand why this happens. > I fully understand that many people on this list sincerely believe that it is unfair or unwise to afford legacy holders transferable property rights. Not at all. They have the same transferable property rights as any other resource holder. > But by refusing to act, they are simply inviting a game of chicken, in which one legacy holder chooses to sell outside its process and ARIN retaliates by refusing to alter its whois records. > At that point the staff will scramble, as it did on the Nortel deal, and we will have this discussion again, only you will have fewer options because you will be in react rather than pro-act mode. Interesting... Except that in the Nortel case, the staff scrambled, intervened in the case, and at the end of the day, Micr0$0ft chose to comply with ARIN policies in completing the transfer and the judge supported that by signing off on the agreement. Looks like it all worked out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in contravention of it's community developed policies. >> Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result in >> is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for >> entities who acquire address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address >> holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address >> holders. > > Does it? I honestly thought we were just debating a definition. I know that people are reading what you say into it, but it wouldn't be the first time that waving the red flag of markets and property got list members diverted from the topic at hand. E.g., every person who has spoken out against this proposed definition has made it clear that they do so not because they disagree with the definition of legacy but because they don't want to allow legacy holders to make transfers outside of ARIN. There are two proposals being debated. Proposal 171 contains the carve-out special exemption, it isn't really part of 172. However, the wording in 172 definitely expands the scope of that carve-out and serves as an adjunct to it. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 04:56:56 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:56:56 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> Message-ID: > > Policy statement (section 1 is unchanged from ARIN-prop-172 version 2.0; section 2 is rewritten): > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > satisfies both of the following two criteria: > > (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet > Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's > inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the > United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and > entity is a term that would include individuals, so, "or individual" is unnecessary and should be deleted. The parenthesis around "other than a Regional Internet Registry" are unnecessary and should be removed. (I believe I made both of these comments on the original text as well). > (2) has not been returned or transferred by the original legacy holder (or its legal successor), has not been reclaimed or revoked by the issuing Registry or its legal successor, and is not covered by a Registration Services Agreement (other than a Legacy Registration Services Agreement). > I can support this definition. It is much more accurate than previous attempts. Owen From mrmagic048 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 05:24:33 2012 From: mrmagic048 at hotmail.com (James Smith) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:24:33 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Help Message-ID: Own ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-request at arin.net Sent: 6/15/2012 1:46 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 48 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to arin-ppml at arin.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to arin-ppml-request at arin.net You can reach the person managing the list at arin-ppml-owner at arin.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 (Owen DeLong) 2. Re: High Level Plan for Clarifying Legacy Resource Policy (Owen DeLong) 3. Re: ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources (Owen DeLong) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:25:32 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: "Lindsey, Marc" Cc: "" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 Message-ID: <78551085-EC48-4ABB-BA16-A2A11CF0B3EF at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Opposed as written. Removal of the needs test from section 8.2 is contrary to the interests of the community. I do like the provision offered in 8.2 subparagraph 3, but I see no reason to use LRSA there instead of RSA. I do not like placing the dependency on the current text of 172 as that definition is fundamentally flawed and the tremendous opposition to that proposal expressed by the community to date leads me to believe that said definition is unlikely to become policy. I would suggest, instead, that the proposal be modified as follows: Unless a definition of legacy resource has already been added to section 2, the following shall be added to section 2: [insert your chosen definition of legacy resource here] As to the rationale... Merely notifying ARIN does not put their ability to retain and use the resources at risk. Transferring them outside of ARIN policy places them at risk. Notifying ARIN merly calls ARIN's attention to the fact, which is, admittedly increasing the risk. However, I still do not buy the theory that just because people might rob banks, we should make bank robbery legal. Just because people might transfer outside of ARIN policy and fail to record those transfers with ARIN does not mean that we should modify our policy to permit such transfers. Owen On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > Policy Proposal Name ? Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements > Proposal Originator ? Marc Lindsey > Proposal Version - 1 > Date ? June 14, 2012 > Policy type ? Modification to existing policy > Policy term - Permanent > Policy Statement > Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the following: > > 8.1 Principles > > ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating registration transfer requests. > > 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions > > When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current registrant or its successor or assign (the ?new entity?), ARIN will transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity?s justification of need for the transferred numbers. > > If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. > > If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any of form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time ?Legacy Record Change Fee? as set forth in the fee schedule unless the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the applicable registration fees. > > [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of ?legacy number? from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record Change fee is TBD] > > Rationale ? The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN?s existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. > For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company?s IP addressing scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities directly involved. ARIN?s discretionary approval of transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records. > Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. > Timetable for implementation - Immediate > > Marc Lindsey > Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP > 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 > Washington, DC 20036 > Phone: (202) 857-2564 > Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com > Website: www.lb3law.com > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:33:53 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: David Farmer Cc: "'arin-ppml at arin.net'" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] High Level Plan for Clarifying Legacy Resource Policy Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:10 PM, David Farmer wrote: > From the discussions we have had I thought it might be a good idea to put down a high level plan for clarifying Legacy Resource Policy. What does the community think? > > It is providing in an outline form, dashed items are my initial comments > > Is there anything missing? > > There seems to be little community support for eliminating or waving needs assessment for recipients of transfer of resources Legacy or otherwise. So, I'm not sure those part of 171 are useful to create policy that can gain consensus. I'll leave at that an not comment more. > > ------ > > A. Define Legacy Resources > > - I believe 172 with Scott's mods is a good start on this > > B. Policies applies to all resources allocated by ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, unless transferred to the control of another RIR. > > - I think this is a given from NRPM Section 1. But should be clearly stated and probably just added as a clarification to Section 1. > > C. Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use > > - Essentially already policy via the LRSA terms, lets just clearly make it policy. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. No. The fact that you get this bonus with your signature of an LRSA is one of the key carrots available to ARIN to induce LRSA signatures. No LRSA, no guarantee. > D. ARIN needs a clear policy mechanism to reclaim Legacy Resources from defunct organization that are not otherwise covered by a signed RSA or LRSA, resources covered by RSA or LRSA have such a mechanism, non-payment of fees results in recovery. This needs proper protections, like commercially reasonable efforts to find a successor organization or a trustee of its estate, etc... NOTE: However, all resource holders have allows had a clear obligation to maintain valid POC information. So at one level it is an organizations responsibility to remain contactable by ARIN. This should, however, also include a provision that if ARIN discovers that the fees are getting paid by a third party and the original registrant is defunct, the resources are subject to immediate reclamation. > - This will be a lot of work, but we GOT to do it. We've needed to do it for a long while. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. I think it's pretty well covered in section 12 already, but, if anything, expanding on section 12 would be the best place to do this IMHO. I'm not sure that the policy needs to be legacy specific as it may be desirable to reclaim non-legacy resources from defunct organization at a point prior to the next billing cycle. > E. Chain of Custody Validation > > - This needs some work but whats in 171 might be a starting point. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. Should not be legacy-specific. Owen ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:43:18 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: David Farmer Cc: John Curran , arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: <5CA233D3-8028-41C7-B810-EEA90025804A at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > What you seem to be asserting is that Legacy status is transferred with resources and the other assets of the company, as part of an M&A transfer such as envisioned in 8.2. While I'm not completely convinced of that, there may be a reasonable argument for that. > > However, it doesn't follow that Legacy status is also transferred with the resources independent of any other assets of the company, when a transfer occurs as part of 8.3. > > The difference is, the purpose of the first type of transfer is to record the change of ownership and/or name of the company, or the ownership of the assets that use the resources, but not the use of the resources per se. Where as the purpose of the second is to change the use of resources, independent of and explicitly not involving any change to the ownership of the company or any other assets. > > Nortel acquiring Bay, is an instance of the first type of transfer, Microsoft acquiring the resources from Nortel through the bankruptcy proceeding is an transfer of the second type. > > I'm sure even a judge would see the distinction in these two situations. > > So it might be worth discussing if an 8.2 transfer removes the Legacy status from resources or not, but it seems clear to me that 8.3 transfers do. > > Finally, the transfer of resources from Bay to Nortel seems completely consistent with 8.2 and probably would have happened if requested long before the bankruptcy. And, if a judge orders you to do something you would probably do anyway; you don't argue with him about it, you just do it. But you say but Nortel didn't request it. That's not true, I believe the action of bankruptcy trustee approved by a judge is legally the same thing as a company taking the action. Before the meaning of 8.3 was emasculated by creative interpretation and subsequently taken out of the AC's hands by fiat of the board determining that this was an operational and not a policy question, it was the very clear intent of the community and the AC that an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3 and that only a standard RSA would be permitted. I understand the reasons that this interpretation was made and believe that it was necessary, so I am not actually seeking to criticize ARIN staff or the board for doing so. However, it is certainly the intent of the policy that legacy status not be transferrable under 8.3 to whatever extent policy can specify that as that was certainly the clear intent of the community during the development of said policy. As such, I believe that ARIN should, as an operational matter, seek to carry that intent out to the greatest extent possible and reasonably believe that they have done so to this point. Owen ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 48 ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mrmagic048 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 15 06:04:23 2012 From: mrmagic048 at hotmail.com (James Smith) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:04:23 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Help Message-ID: Help ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-request at arin.net Sent: 6/15/2012 2:30 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 49 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to arin-ppml at arin.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to arin-ppml-request at arin.net You can reach the person managing the list at arin-ppml-owner at arin.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources (Owen DeLong) 2. Re: ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources (Owen DeLong) 3. Help (James Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:50:16 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: Milton L Mueller Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795 at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> Due to the difference in dynamics between allocated and unallocated >> address blocks, it's clear to me that managing allocations from the free pool >> necessitated a more aggressive resource stewardship role from ARIN for >> those address blocks and that same role isn't necessitated for already >> allocated blocks. > > Agreed. > >> That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's >> interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already allocated >> resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets certain >> minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address >> blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in >> the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a >> whole to impose such requirements. > > Yes, but I am pretty sure they're wrong, and that it is only a matter of time before those opinions, which are based on nostalgia, inertia and faulty economics and law, change. No matter how many different ways you say this, the reality is that just because we don't agree with you does not make us wrong. Continuing to say otherwise over and over doesn't make it accurate. > The real question is whether ARIN anticipates changes and is pro-active, or whether it is forced into action by external events. > The answer to that question is pretty obvious, so far. > The ARIN "community" is happy with where it is now and repeatedly waits until action is forced on it by external developments. As a general rule, when you are faced with a good situation and some chance that it could turn bad, you seek to do whatever you can to keep the situation good and do not seek to accelerate turning it bad. As such, yes, I agree with you about your last sentence. We do not seek to apply bad policies to number resources until we are forced to do so by external developments. I do, however, find it interesting that you appear to be claiming this is a bad thing. > I fully understand why this happens. > I fully understand that many people on this list sincerely believe that it is unfair or unwise to afford legacy holders transferable property rights. Not at all. They have the same transferable property rights as any other resource holder. > But by refusing to act, they are simply inviting a game of chicken, in which one legacy holder chooses to sell outside its process and ARIN retaliates by refusing to alter its whois records. > At that point the staff will scramble, as it did on the Nortel deal, and we will have this discussion again, only you will have fewer options because you will be in react rather than pro-act mode. Interesting... Except that in the Nortel case, the staff scrambled, intervened in the case, and at the end of the day, Micr0$0ft chose to comply with ARIN policies in completing the transfer and the judge supported that by signing off on the agreement. Looks like it all worked out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in contravention of it's community developed policies. >> Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result in >> is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for >> entities who acquire address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address >> holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address >> holders. > > Does it? I honestly thought we were just debating a definition. I know that people are reading what you say into it, but it wouldn't be the first time that waving the red flag of markets and property got list members diverted from the topic at hand. E.g., every person who has spoken out against this proposed definition has made it clear that they do so not because they disagree with the definition of legacy but because they don't want to allow legacy holders to make transfers outside of ARIN. There are two proposals being debated. Proposal 171 contains the carve-out special exemption, it isn't really part of 172. However, the wording in 172 definitely expands the scope of that carve-out and serves as an adjunct to it. Owen ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:56:56 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: Scott Leibrand Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Policy statement (section 1 is unchanged from ARIN-prop-172 version 2.0; section 2 is rewritten): > > A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that > satisfies both of the following two criteria: > > (1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet > Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's > inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the > United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority > ("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and > entity is a term that would include individuals, so, "or individual" is unnecessary and should be deleted. The parenthesis around "other than a Regional Internet Registry" are unnecessary and should be removed. (I believe I made both of these comments on the original text as well). > (2) has not been returned or transferred by the original legacy holder (or its legal successor), has not been reclaimed or revoked by the issuing Registry or its legal successor, and is not covered by a Registration Services Agreement (other than a Legacy Registration Services Agreement). > I can support this definition. It is much more accurate than previous attempts. Owen ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:24:33 -0700 From: James Smith To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: [arin-ppml] Help Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Own ________________________________ From: arin-ppml-request at arin.net Sent: 6/15/2012 1:46 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 48 Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to arin-ppml at arin.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to arin-ppml-request at arin.net You can reach the person managing the list at arin-ppml-owner at arin.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 (Owen DeLong) 2. Re: High Level Plan for Clarifying Legacy Resource Policy (Owen DeLong) 3. Re: ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources (Owen DeLong) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:25:32 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: "Lindsey, Marc" Cc: "" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 Message-ID: <78551085-EC48-4ABB-BA16-A2A11CF0B3EF at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Opposed as written. Removal of the needs test from section 8.2 is contrary to the interests of the community. I do like the provision offered in 8.2 subparagraph 3, but I see no reason to use LRSA there instead of RSA. I do not like placing the dependency on the current text of 172 as that definition is fundamentally flawed and the tremendous opposition to that proposal expressed by the community to date leads me to believe that said definition is unlikely to become policy. I would suggest, instead, that the proposal be modified as follows: Unless a definition of legacy resource has already been added to section 2, the following shall be added to section 2: [insert your chosen definition of legacy resource here] As to the rationale... Merely notifying ARIN does not put their ability to retain and use the resources at risk. Transferring them outside of ARIN policy places them at risk. Notifying ARIN merly calls ARIN's attention to the fact, which is, admittedly increasing the risk. However, I still do not buy the theory that just because people might rob banks, we should make bank robbery legal. Just because people might transfer outside of ARIN policy and fail to record those transfers with ARIN does not mean that we should modify our policy to permit such transfers. Owen On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > Policy Proposal Name ? Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements > Proposal Originator ? Marc Lindsey > Proposal Version - 1 > Date ? June 14, 2012 > Policy type ? Modification to existing policy > Policy term - Permanent > Policy Statement > Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the following: > > 8.1 Principles > > ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating registration transfer requests. > > 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions > > When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current registrant or its successor or assign (the ?new entity?), ARIN will transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity?s justification of need for the transferred numbers. > > If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. > > If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any of form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time ?Legacy Record Change Fee? as set forth in the fee schedule unless the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the applicable registration fees. > > [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of ?legacy number? from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record Change fee is TBD] > > Rationale ? The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN?s existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. > For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company?s IP addressing scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities directly involved. ARIN?s discretionary approval of transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records. > Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. > Timetable for implementation - Immediate > > Marc Lindsey > Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP > 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 > Washington, DC 20036 > Phone: (202) 857-2564 > Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com > Website: www.lb3law.com > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:33:53 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: David Farmer Cc: "'arin-ppml at arin.net'" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] High Level Plan for Clarifying Legacy Resource Policy Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:10 PM, David Farmer wrote: > From the discussions we have had I thought it might be a good idea to put down a high level plan for clarifying Legacy Resource Policy. What does the community think? > > It is providing in an outline form, dashed items are my initial comments > > Is there anything missing? > > There seems to be little community support for eliminating or waving needs assessment for recipients of transfer of resources Legacy or otherwise. So, I'm not sure those part of 171 are useful to create policy that can gain consensus. I'll leave at that an not comment more. > > ------ > > A. Define Legacy Resources > > - I believe 172 with Scott's mods is a good start on this > > B. Policies applies to all resources allocated by ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, unless transferred to the control of another RIR. > > - I think this is a given from NRPM Section 1. But should be clearly stated and probably just added as a clarification to Section 1. > > C. Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use > > - Essentially already policy via the LRSA terms, lets just clearly make it policy. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. No. The fact that you get this bonus with your signature of an LRSA is one of the key carrots available to ARIN to induce LRSA signatures. No LRSA, no guarantee. > D. ARIN needs a clear policy mechanism to reclaim Legacy Resources from defunct organization that are not otherwise covered by a signed RSA or LRSA, resources covered by RSA or LRSA have such a mechanism, non-payment of fees results in recovery. This needs proper protections, like commercially reasonable efforts to find a successor organization or a trustee of its estate, etc... NOTE: However, all resource holders have allows had a clear obligation to maintain valid POC information. So at one level it is an organizations responsibility to remain contactable by ARIN. This should, however, also include a provision that if ARIN discovers that the fees are getting paid by a third party and the original registrant is defunct, the resources are subject to immediate reclamation. > - This will be a lot of work, but we GOT to do it. We've needed to do it for a long while. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. I think it's pretty well covered in section 12 already, but, if anything, expanding on section 12 would be the best place to do this IMHO. I'm not sure that the policy needs to be legacy specific as it may be desirable to reclaim non-legacy resources from defunct organization at a point prior to the next billing cycle. > E. Chain of Custody Validation > > - This needs some work but whats in 171 might be a starting point. Probably should go in a new Legacy Resource Section. Should not be legacy-specific. Owen ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:43:18 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: David Farmer Cc: John Curran , arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPMSection2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: <5CA233D3-8028-41C7-B810-EEA90025804A at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > What you seem to be asserting is that Legacy status is transferred with resources and the other assets of the company, as part of an M&A transfer such as envisioned in 8.2. While I'm not completely convinced of that, there may be a reasonable argument for that. > > However, it doesn't follow that Legacy status is also transferred with the resources independent of any other assets of the company, when a transfer occurs as part of 8.3. > > The difference is, the purpose of the first type of transfer is to record the change of ownership and/or name of the company, or the ownership of the assets that use the resources, but not the use of the resources per se. Where as the purpose of the second is to change the use of resources, independent of and explicitly not involving any change to the ownership of the company or any other assets. > > Nortel acquiring Bay, is an instance of the first type of transfer, Microsoft acquiring the resources from Nortel through the bankruptcy proceeding is an transfer of the second type. > > I'm sure even a judge would see the distinction in these two situations. > > So it might be worth discussing if an 8.2 transfer removes the Legacy status from resources or not, but it seems clear to me that 8.3 transfers do. > > Finally, the transfer of resources from Bay to Nortel seems completely consistent with 8.2 and probably would have happened if requested long before the bankruptcy. And, if a judge orders you to do something you would probably do anyway; you don't argue with him about it, you just do it. But you say but Nortel didn't request it. That's not true, I believe the action of bankruptcy trustee approved by a judge is legally the same thing as a company taking the action. Before the meaning of 8.3 was emasculated by creative interpretation and subsequently taken out of the AC's hands by fiat of the board determining that this was an operational and not a policy question, it was the very clear intent of the community and the AC that an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3 and that only a standard RSA would be permitted. I understand the reasons that this interpretation was made and believe that it was necessary, so I am not actually seeking to criticize ARIN staff or the board for doing so. However, it is certainly the intent of the policy that legacy status not be transferrable under 8.3 to whatever extent policy can specify that as that was certainly the clear intent of the community during the development of said policy. As such, I believe that ARIN should, as an operational matter, seek to carry that intent out to the greatest extent possible and reasonably believe that they have done so to this point. Owen ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 48 ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 49 ***************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jun 15 08:40:50 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:40:50 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> On 6/15/2012 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Interesting... Except that in the Nortel case, the staff scrambled, > intervened in the case, and at the end of the day, Micr0$0ft chose to > comply with ARIN policies in completing the transfer and the judge > supported that by signing off on the agreement. Looks like it all > worked out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in > contravention of it's community developed policies. On 6/15/2012 9:43 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Before the meaning of 8.3 was emasculated by creative interpretation and subsequently taken out of the AC's hands by fiat of the board determining that this was an operational and not a policy question, it was the very clear intent of the community and the AC that an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3 and that only a standard RSA would be permitted. > > I understand the reasons that this interpretation was made and believe that it was necessary, so I am not actually seeking to criticize ARIN staff or the board for doing so. However, it is certainly the intent of the policy that legacy status not be transferrable under 8.3 to whatever extent policy can specify that as that was certainly the clear intent of the community during the development of said policy. So, Owen, which is it? Did it "work out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in contravention of its community developed policies" or was "the meaning of 8.3 emasculated by creative interpretation" and "the very clear intent of the community than an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3" ? Matthew Kaufman From farmer at umn.edu Fri Jun 15 09:54:03 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:54:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> Message-ID: <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> On 6/15/12 07:40 CDT, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/15/2012 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Interesting... Except that in the Nortel case, the staff scrambled, >> intervened in the case, and at the end of the day, Micr0$0ft chose to >> comply with ARIN policies in completing the transfer and the judge >> supported that by signing off on the agreement. Looks like it all >> worked out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in >> contravention of it's community developed policies. > > On 6/15/2012 9:43 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Before the meaning of 8.3 was emasculated by creative interpretation >> and subsequently taken out of the AC's hands by fiat of the board >> determining that this was an operational and not a policy question, it >> was the very clear intent of the community and the AC that an LRSA was >> not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3 and >> that only a standard RSA would be permitted. >> >> I understand the reasons that this interpretation was made and believe >> that it was necessary, so I am not actually seeking to criticize ARIN >> staff or the board for doing so. However, it is certainly the intent >> of the policy that legacy status not be transferrable under 8.3 to >> whatever extent policy can specify that as that was certainly the >> clear intent of the community during the development of said policy. > > So, Owen, which is it? > > Did it "work out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in > contravention of its community developed policies" or was "the meaning > of 8.3 emasculated by creative interpretation" and "the very clear > intent of the community than an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative > to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3" ? We seem to what to place blame for something here. I blame us the community, we muddied the waters. We were trying to implement policy as part of contract language, "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use". This should just plain and simply the policy, not conditional on signing a contact, not implemented through contract language, but in the NRPM. Staff and Counsel should have the operational flexibility to do what they need to do with contracts without creating implications for policy. If there were policy issues created, and I not saying there was, it is our fault not theirs. I will agree there was the appearance of a problem created, but again this was created by improperly tying a policy issue into a contract clause. This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just become policy in the NRPM. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From info at arin.net Fri Jun 15 10:33:23 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:33:23 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FDB47B3.9040003@arin.net> ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements Proposal Originator: Marc Lindsey Date: 15 June 2012 Policy type: Modification to existing policy Policy term: Permanent Policy Statement Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the following: 8.1 Principles ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating registration transfer requests. 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current registrant or its successor or assign (the ?new entity?), ARIN will transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity?s justification of need for the transferred numbers. If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any other form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time ?Legacy Record Change Fee? as set forth in the fee schedule unless the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the applicable registration fees. [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of ?legacy number? from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record Change fee is TBD] Rationale The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN?s existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company?s IP addressing scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities directly involved. ARIN?s discretionary approval of transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records. Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. Timetable for implementation - Immediate From kkargel at polartel.com Fri Jun 15 10:50:35 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:50:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA5@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D45E@MAIL1.polartel.local> I will oppose any policy that allows transfer of resources without an RSA. Kevin Kargel _____ From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lindsey, Marc Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:02 PM To: Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 Policy Proposal Name - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements Proposal Originator - Marc Lindsey Proposal Version - 1 Date - June 14, 2012 Policy type - Modification to existing policy Policy term - Permanent Policy Statement Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the following: 8.1 Principles ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating registration transfer requests. 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current registrant or its successor or assign (the "new entity"), ARIN will transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity's justification of need for the transferred numbers. If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any of form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time "Legacy Record Change Fee" as set forth in the fee schedule unless the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the applicable registration fees. [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of "legacy number" from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record Change fee is TBD] Rationale - The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN's existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company's IP addressing scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities directly involved. ARIN's discretionary approval of transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records. Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. Timetable for implementation - Immediate Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-2564 Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com Website: www.lb3law.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mlindsey at lb3law.com Fri Jun 15 11:08:09 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:08:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal v2 - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 In-Reply-To: <4FDA8C85.7060700@umn.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA8@lb3ex01> <4FDA8C85.7060700@umn.edu> Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCB5@lb3ex01> David, I appreciate the feedback, and will work in many (if not all) of your suggestions in my next revision. -Marc Lindsey -----Original Message----- From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:15 PM To: Lindsey, Marc Cc: ; David Farmer Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal v2 - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 Thanks for doing this; A few things inline; On 6/14/12 18:26 CDT, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > *Policy Proposal Name*- Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements > > *Proposal Originator*- Marc Lindsey > > *Proposal Version*- 2 > > *Date*- June 14, 2012 > > *Policy type*- Modification to existing policy > > *Policy term*- Permanent > > *Policy Statement* > > > Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them > with the following: > > *8.1 Principles * > > ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of > number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies > with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when > evaluating registration transfer requests. I don't think we want to eliminate all of the Principles in the current 8.1 that you did; for example clarifying that just because someone is listed as a POC doesn't mean that they have the authority to transfer resource is probably a good idea. However, eliminating the current reference to the RSA might be a good idea given the intent of this policy. So could I suggest you review the current principles and add at least some of them back in, even if you rewrite some of them. Also, I'm not sure if it should be "WHOIS database" or "Directory Service" from a policy perspective. Also, this is the place for ideas like "binding written agreement" and "written consent of the resource holder" if you feel the need, and not in the definition of Legacy Resource. > 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions > > When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current > registrant or its successor or assign (the "new entity"), ARIN will > transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity > upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the > resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, > acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an > up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under > this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity's > justification of need for the transferred numbers. > > If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the > new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA > covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. > > If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall > not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or > any other form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of > legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new > entity shall pay, a one-time "Legacy Record Change Fee" as set forth > in the fee schedule /unless/ the new entity elects, in its discretion, > to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays > the applicable registration fees. I understand what your getting at, but generally the word "fee" is taboo in ARIN policy. I need to think about your use of it here, but if you can find a way to make it go away, that might be better. The use of it in the second paragraph night be OK. But specifying "Legacy Record Change Fee" is probably going over the line, but again I understand why you are going their and agree with the idea. I'll think about it more. > [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of "legacy number" > from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy > Record Change fee is TBD] > > *Rationale *- The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy > holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to > assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. > Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to > update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at > risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current > process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove > that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and > appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue > using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN's existence. Once they pass > the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) > that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and > possible revocation under then-current policy. > > For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome > and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company's IP addressing > scheme as part of an M&A transaction should be within the control of > the entities directly involved. ARIN's discretionary approval of > transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary > contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update > request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update > the records. > > Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to > update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately > reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase > the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. I agree that the current language regarding evaluation of resources creates a significant disincentive for Legacy Holders to properly update records through M&A transfers. And allowing Legacy Holders to maintain Legacy status through an M&A transfer provides a proper incentive for them to update the records, which is very important. > *Timetable for implementation*- Immediate I think this will be useful and might be able to get community consensus. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 16:21:04 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:21:04 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> Message-ID: <5A46B72C-1B04-4251-A84C-3D4F4CA8E9AD@delong.com> On Jun 15, 2012, at 5:40 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/15/2012 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Interesting... Except that in the Nortel case, the staff scrambled, intervened in the case, and at the end of the day, Micr0$0ft chose to comply with ARIN policies in completing the transfer and the judge supported that by signing off on the agreement. Looks like it all worked out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in contravention of it's community developed policies. > > On 6/15/2012 9:43 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Before the meaning of 8.3 was emasculated by creative interpretation and subsequently taken out of the AC's hands by fiat of the board determining that this was an operational and not a policy question, it was the very clear intent of the community and the AC that an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3 and that only a standard RSA would be permitted. >> >> I understand the reasons that this interpretation was made and believe that it was necessary, so I am not actually seeking to criticize ARIN staff or the board for doing so. However, it is certainly the intent of the policy that legacy status not be transferrable under 8.3 to whatever extent policy can specify that as that was certainly the clear intent of the community during the development of said policy. > > So, Owen, which is it? > > Did it "work out pretty well for everyone without ARIN acting in contravention of its community developed policies" or was "the meaning of 8.3 emasculated by creative interpretation" and "the very clear intent of the community than an LRSA was not an acceptable alternative to meet the RSA requirements of 8.3" ? Both, actually. As I said, I understood why the interpretation was made and believe that doing so was necessary. It was slightly outside of the intent, but within the policy. Overall, it worked out pretty well for everyone. Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 16:23:13 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:23:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> Message-ID: <13614333-ECE5-4934-88A0-F227FDAE2420@delong.com> > We seem to what to place blame for something here. I blame us the community, we muddied the waters. We were trying to implement policy as part of contract language, "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use". This should just plain and simply the policy, not conditional on signing a contact, not implemented through contract language, but in the NRPM. > But there's more to it. The policy should also state that an 8.3 transfer of resources puts an end to their legacy status. Resources transferred under 8.3 must become non-legacy resources after the transfer. > Staff and Counsel should have the operational flexibility to do what they need to do with contracts without creating implications for policy. If there were policy issues created, and I not saying there was, it is our fault not theirs. I will agree there was the appearance of a problem created, but again this was created by improperly tying a policy issue into a contract clause. > > This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just become policy in the NRPM. I'm not wild about this, but not entirely opposed, either so long as the legacy status does not survive an 8.3 transfer. Ideally, it should not survive an 8.2 transfer, either, but that might be a harder nut to crack. Owen From farmer at umn.edu Fri Jun 15 21:12:10 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:12:10 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <13614333-ECE5-4934-88A0-F227FDAE2420@delong.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> <13614333-ECE5-4934-88A0-F227FDAE2420@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FDBDD6A.60203@umn.edu> On 6/15/12 15:23 CDT, Owen DeLong wrote: >> We seem to what to place blame for something here. I blame us the community, we muddied the waters. We were trying to implement policy as part of contract language, "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use". This should just plain and simply the policy, not conditional on signing a contact, not implemented through contract language, but in the NRPM. >> > > But there's more to it. > > The policy should also state that an 8.3 transfer of resources puts an end to their legacy status. Resources transferred under 8.3 must become non-legacy resources after the transfer. > >> Staff and Counsel should have the operational flexibility to do what they need to do with contracts without creating implications for policy. If there were policy issues created, and I not saying there was, it is our fault not theirs. I will agree there was the appearance of a problem created, but again this was created by improperly tying a policy issue into a contract clause. >> >> This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just become policy in the NRPM. > > I'm not wild about this, but not entirely opposed, either so long as the legacy status does not survive an 8.3 transfer. > > Ideally, it should not survive an 8.2 transfer, either, but that might be a harder nut to crack. Yes, I agree that there are several other things that need to be implemented at the same time. And I agree that an 8.3 transfer terminates legacy status. There are several type sub types of transactions that occur under 8.2, some of these I feel it would be unfair to terminate Legacy status for, others I would probably be OK with it terminating legacy status. Unless we tweeze apart 8.2 into sub categories, I'd suggest we just allow M&As to keep legacy status, but how about we discuss that on one of the other threads. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 15 21:25:27 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:25:27 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDBDD6A.60203@umn.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> <13614333-ECE5-4934-88A0-F227FDAE2420@delong.com> <4FDBDD6A.60203@umn.edu> Message-ID: <80C8EBAC-5F59-4332-9FBE-C6A58557C304@delong.com> On Jun 15, 2012, at 6:12 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 6/15/12 15:23 CDT, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> We seem to what to place blame for something here. I blame us the community, we muddied the waters. We were trying to implement policy as part of contract language, "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use". This should just plain and simply the policy, not conditional on signing a contact, not implemented through contract language, but in the NRPM. >>> >> >> But there's more to it. >> >> The policy should also state that an 8.3 transfer of resources puts an end to their legacy status. Resources transferred under 8.3 must become non-legacy resources after the transfer. >> >>> Staff and Counsel should have the operational flexibility to do what they need to do with contracts without creating implications for policy. If there were policy issues created, and I not saying there was, it is our fault not theirs. I will agree there was the appearance of a problem created, but again this was created by improperly tying a policy issue into a contract clause. >>> >>> This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just become policy in the NRPM. >> >> I'm not wild about this, but not entirely opposed, either so long as the legacy status does not survive an 8.3 transfer. >> >> Ideally, it should not survive an 8.2 transfer, either, but that might be a harder nut to crack. > > Yes, I agree that there are several other things that need to be implemented at the same time. And I agree that an 8.3 transfer terminates legacy status. There are several type sub types of transactions that occur under 8.2, some of these I feel it would be unfair to terminate Legacy status for, others I would probably be OK with it terminating legacy status. Unless we tweeze apart 8.2 into sub categories, I'd suggest we just allow M&As to keep legacy status, but how about we discuss that on one of the other threads. I suppose that depends on how you perceive legacy status. I perceive it as a remaining artifact of an underdeveloped policy regime during an early period of experimentation with the internet. The fact that it exists at all is a combination of tradition and anachronism. Eventually, with the decay of the IPv4 internet, it will become irrelevant anyway, but in the meantime, I don't see anything unfair about resolving it when a change of ownership occurs. Care to elaborate on what are these perceived subcategories of 8.2 transfers where you feel termination of legacy status would be unfair? As to thread, we can discuss wherever you like. This is the one where you brought it up. Feel free to place your response in whatever thread you prefer. Owen From cgrundemann at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 13:09:36 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:09:36 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:54 AM, David Farmer wrote: > This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy > Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just become > policy in the NRPM. I can not disagree with you more David. Mainly because there is no such thing as "legacy resources." There are legacy resource holders and it has become common for some folks to refer to the resources allocated or assigned to them to be called legacy, but there is nothing (not one thing) special or different about those resources. The fact that the registrant does not have a contract is potentially a double-edged sword for the resource holder but again, imparts no special qualities to the resources themselves. Also, we have been asked several times by the community at large to stop mucking with IPv4 policy. Since there is no one arguing that there is "legacy" IPv6 under any definition, I see no reason to muddle about here, regardless of the definition of "legacy." $0.02 ~Chris > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email:farmer at umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE ? ? ?Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 ? Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From mysidia at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 13:50:10 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:50:10 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> Message-ID: On 6/16/12, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:54 AM, David Farmer wrote: >> This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy >> Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just >> become >> policy in the NRPM. There is an advantage to having a "Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" clause in the LRS; the advantages are enjoyed by the party when ARIN agrees to place resources under an LRSA, at the expense of the community's policymaking ability. It constrains the community. With such a clause, the community cannot start creating policies to forcibly reclaim resources that were properly obtained solely for lack of use, because ARIN has a contract saying they won't do that for LRSA signees, and this gives LRSA signees a sense of "security" in acceding to the LRSA, that they are not shooting themselves in the foot or totally writing themselves off to the immediate mercy/uncertainty of the community by signing a LRSA. The community can still make and ARIN can still enforce policies to reclaim resources that were obtained fraudulently or in a manner inconsistent with policies. And ARIN giving up the right to reclaim resources solely for lack of use may be a reasonable concession if it is what ARIN has to do in order to persuade Legacy resource holders to sign a LRSA. ARIN can concentrate on reclaiming resources due to lack of use on resources that were obtained improperly, resources that were abandoned, or resources that were never placed under a RSA. What ARIN should not do is make that kind of concession for transferred resources. ARIN doesn't need to -- the transfer applicant has to agree to ARIN's rules and sign a RSA in order to make a transfer; it's a mandatory policy, additional special concessions to "Persuade" placing the resources under an RSA are not appropriate. -- -JH From cgrundemann at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 14:25:55 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:25:55 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] The term "legacy" and proposals 171, 172, & 173 Message-ID: ARIN Community, I have finally caught up on all the recent email threads here on PPML regarding the term "legacy" and the related policy proposals (props 171, 172, & 173). I have several general thoughts that I'd like for you to consider: # The term "legacy" has been used informally by many in this community for quite some time to simply mean 'assignments and allocations made before ARIN / before the current RIR structure.' # Internet numbers have value only in context. # I have not, in the recent conversations nor in any of the multitudes of previous similar conversations, heard/seen a network operator who is also a "legacy resource holder" support the suggestion to grant advantage to organizations who happened to be in place at the time that "legacy" allocations and assignments were made (aka the 80s). In fact, I have seen many "legacy registrants" stand up in opposition to such proposals. # The value of the Internet is in it's openness and ability to grow and evolve around the world. Just as I oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to filter and control access to the Internet, I oppose efforts by folks from any country to apply arbitrary local regulations to control access to this global communications medium. The Internet belongs to no single individual, organization, or nation. It relies completely on cooperation and coordination, and efforts to stymie this are efforts to destroy the value of the Internet, whether those who propose them understand this or not. I ask all participants here to consider two key questions in all policy discussions: 1) Who is it that is making an argument? Are they speaking as a network operator? As an Internet user? What is their *primary* motivation? 2) In the words of Henry Hazlitt: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." In other words: How will any proposed policy change effect EVERYONE who uses the Internet, not just tomorrow but over the next 10, 20, or 100 years? Cheers, ~Chris (As always, my thoughts expressed here are mine and mine alone, they in no way represent the views of any of my employers, organizations, affiliations, colleagues, associates, friends, neighbors, pets or anyone else. In fact, they may not even represent my own opinions by the time you read them.) -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From farmer at umn.edu Sat Jun 16 17:03:48 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:03:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FDCF4B4.5060405@umn.edu> On 6/16/12 12:09 CDT, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:54 AM, David Farmer wrote: > >> This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy >> Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just become >> policy in the NRPM. > > I can not disagree with you more David. > > Mainly because there is no such thing as "legacy resources." There are > legacy resource holders and it has become common for some folks to > refer to the resources allocated or assigned to them to be called > legacy, but there is nothing (not one thing) special or different > about those resources. Actually, it is neither a property of a resource or a resource holder independently. Legacy status a property of both a resource and its resource holder together, it is the relationship of the two that has legacy status. New resources can be assigned to a resource holder that has legacy resources without the new resources having legacy status. A legacy resources may be transferred to a new resources holder (through 8.3) without the new resources holder having legacy status. Neither of these would be true if the resource or the resource holder interdependently held legacy status. This is because legacy status is a property of the relationship between a resources and the resource holder, and of neither independently. However, I contend that when a resource holder updates its name or changes its ownership through (through a 8.2 transfer) the relationship between the resource and the resource holder is not changed and therefore the legacy status is maintained. > The fact that the registrant does not have a > contract is potentially a double-edged sword for the resource holder > but again, imparts no special qualities to the resources themselves. I contend that while many legacy resources are not covered under a formal agreement (LRSA or RSA contract) all resources are are covered under an agreement between the resource holder and the registry that assigned them. In the case of many legacy resources this is an informal agreement between the resource holder and a predecessor registry of ARIN, for which ARIN is the legal successor. > Also, we have been asked several times by the community at large to > stop mucking with IPv4 policy. Since there is no one arguing that > there is "legacy" IPv6 under any definition, I see no reason to muddle > about here, regardless of the definition of "legacy." At one level I agree, however, this really isn't new policy, it is properly documenting current practice and dealing with an issue we have created by writing what should be a policy statement into contract. I believe we have mistakenly crated a situation where parts of policy don't apply to some resources base on a contract terms. I've recently come to believe this is a problem and dangerous. I think the solution is to define Legacy Resources in policy clearly and move the policy "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" into the NRPM, along with other supporting policies that are needed to make it work the way we want it to. Technically, if we transition ARIN to a new organization or radically change IPv6 policy we may have a legacy IPv6 situation in the future. So how with deal with legacy resources could matter even for IPv6 in the future. I hope it is unlikely, but it not impossible. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From owen at delong.com Sat Jun 16 18:23:16 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:23:16 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDCF4B4.5060405@umn.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> <4FDCF4B4.5060405@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 16, 2012, at 2:03 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 6/16/12 12:09 CDT, Chris Grundemann wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:54 AM, David Farmer wrote: >> >>> This is hindsight, but lets learn from it and fix the problem. "Legacy >>> Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" should just become >>> policy in the NRPM. >> >> I can not disagree with you more David. >> >> Mainly because there is no such thing as "legacy resources." There are >> legacy resource holders and it has become common for some folks to >> refer to the resources allocated or assigned to them to be called >> legacy, but there is nothing (not one thing) special or different >> about those resources. > > Actually, it is neither a property of a resource or a resource holder independently. Legacy status a property of both a resource and its resource holder together, it is the relationship of the two that has legacy status. > > New resources can be assigned to a resource holder that has legacy resources without the new resources having legacy status. A legacy resources may be transferred to a new resources holder (through 8.3) without the new resources holder having legacy status. Neither of these would be true if the resource or the resource holder interdependently held legacy status. This is because legacy status is a property of the relationship between a resources and the resource holder, and of neither independently. > > However, I contend that when a resource holder updates its name or changes its ownership through (through a 8.2 transfer) the relationship between the resource and the resource holder is not changed and therefore the legacy status is maintained. > That has been traditionally true in some (though not all) cases. I am not sure it should remain true. >> The fact that the registrant does not have a >> contract is potentially a double-edged sword for the resource holder >> but again, imparts no special qualities to the resources themselves. > > I contend that while many legacy resources are not covered under a formal agreement (LRSA or RSA contract) all resources are are covered under an agreement between the resource holder and the registry that assigned them. In the case of many legacy resources this is an informal agreement between the resource holder and a predecessor registry of ARIN, for which ARIN is the legal successor. The exact nature of said agreement(s) is, however, ill-, if not un-defined. >> Also, we have been asked several times by the community at large to >> stop mucking with IPv4 policy. Since there is no one arguing that >> there is "legacy" IPv6 under any definition, I see no reason to muddle >> about here, regardless of the definition of "legacy." > > At one level I agree, however, this really isn't new policy, it is properly documenting current practice and dealing with an issue we have created by writing what should be a policy statement into contract. I believe we have mistakenly crated a situation where parts of policy don't apply to some resources base on a contract terms. I've recently come to believe this is a problem and dangerous. I think the solution is to define Legacy Resources in policy clearly and move the policy "Legacy Resources will not be reclaimed solely for lack of use" into the NRPM, along with other supporting policies that are needed to make it work the way we want it to. You'll need to shed some light on what makes you think having this exception in contract language applying only to legacy holders that sign the LRSA is dangerous. IMHO, it's preferable to codifying it in policy for legacy holders that have not signed an RSA. > Technically, if we transition ARIN to a new organization or radically change IPv6 policy we may have a legacy IPv6 situation in the future. So how with deal with legacy resources could matter even for IPv6 in the future. I hope it is unlikely, but it not impossible. Huh? How do you figure that? No IPv6 resources are issued without RSA. To me, the defining context for legacy resources is that they are not covered under RSA. I would argue that once resources are under LRSA, though they preserve some legacy protections, they no longer truly have legacy status (which is a good thing). Owen From jcurran at arin.net Sat Jun 16 20:33:24 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 00:33:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 16, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > There is an advantage to having a "Resources will not be reclaimed > solely for lack of use" > clause in the LRS; the advantages are enjoyed by the party when ARIN > agrees to place resources under an LRSA, at the expense of the > community's policymaking ability. It constrains the community. > With such a clause, the community cannot start creating policies to > forcibly reclaim resources that were properly obtained solely for lack > of use, because ARIN has a contract saying they won't do that for LRSA > signees, and this gives LRSA signees a sense of "security" in > acceding to the LRSA, that they are not shooting themselves in the > foot or totally writing themselves off to the immediate > mercy/uncertainty of the community by signing a LRSA. > > The community can still make and ARIN can still enforce policies to > reclaim resources that were obtained fraudulently or in a manner > inconsistent with policies. > > And ARIN giving up the right to reclaim resources solely for lack of > use may be a reasonable concession if it is what ARIN has to do in > order to persuade Legacy resource holders to sign a LRSA. Jimmy - As it turns out, that language already exists in the most recent versions of both the RSA [1] (in Section 6) and in the LRSA [2] (in section 7). These are now quite similar agreements at this point (aside from a fee schedule reference); we have tried to make working with ARIN as easy as possible while also treating all resource holders as equitably as possible. ARIN seeks utilization details when an address holder requests space to be issued from ARIN's free pool, or be the recipient of a transfer. In either case, ARIN will not take revocation action due to lack of utilization by the address holder. To due so when there is clear value for the rights and a functional (if limited) market transfer mechanism would be highly imprudent on ARIN's part. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN [1] RSA: https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/rsa.pdf [2] LRSA: https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf From scottleibrand at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 02:05:20 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 23:05:20 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> Message-ID: <8CE0095C-BCDD-4081-9B5F-CAB20156B7CC@gmail.com> John, We recently added "or transfer" to the list of ways to cure a underutilization situation. Does that still apply under this RSA language? Will ARIN require an org to transfer space it's not using? Thanks, Scott On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:33 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 16, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >> >> There is an advantage to having a "Resources will not be reclaimed >> solely for lack of use" >> clause in the LRS; the advantages are enjoyed by the party when ARIN >> agrees to place resources under an LRSA, at the expense of the >> community's policymaking ability. It constrains the community. >> With such a clause, the community cannot start creating policies to >> forcibly reclaim resources that were properly obtained solely for lack >> of use, because ARIN has a contract saying they won't do that for LRSA >> signees, and this gives LRSA signees a sense of "security" in >> acceding to the LRSA, that they are not shooting themselves in the >> foot or totally writing themselves off to the immediate >> mercy/uncertainty of the community by signing a LRSA. >> >> The community can still make and ARIN can still enforce policies to >> reclaim resources that were obtained fraudulently or in a manner >> inconsistent with policies. >> >> And ARIN giving up the right to reclaim resources solely for lack of >> use may be a reasonable concession if it is what ARIN has to do in >> order to persuade Legacy resource holders to sign a LRSA. > > Jimmy - > > As it turns out, that language already exists in the most recent > versions of both the RSA [1] (in Section 6) and in the LRSA [2] > (in section 7). These are now quite similar agreements at this > point (aside from a fee schedule reference); we have tried to make > working with ARIN as easy as possible while also treating all > resource holders as equitably as possible. > > ARIN seeks utilization details when an address holder requests space > to be issued from ARIN's free pool, or be the recipient of a transfer. > In either case, ARIN will not take revocation action due to lack of > utilization by the address holder. To due so when there is clear value > for the rights and a functional (if limited) market transfer mechanism > would be highly imprudent on ARIN's part. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > [1] RSA: https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/rsa.pdf > [2] LRSA: https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/legacy_rsa.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Sun Jun 17 06:55:03 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:55:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8CE0095C-BCDD-4081-9B5F-CAB20156B7CC@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> <8CE0095C-BCDD-4081-9B5F-CAB20156B7CC@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 17, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > John, > > We recently added "or transfer" to the list of ways to cure a underutilization situation. Does that still apply under this RSA language? Will ARIN require an org to transfer space it's not using? ARIN will "work with the resource holder(s) to return, aggregate, transfer, or reclaim resources as needed to restore compliance via the processes outlined in current ARIN policy." As ARIN will not revoke from parties under the current versions of the registration service agreements for lack of utilization, that leaves voluntary return, aggregation, and transfer as processes we would encourage to restore compliance with utilization criteria. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From kkargel at polartel.com Mon Jun 18 10:44:23 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:44:23 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDBDD6A.60203@umn.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> <13614333-ECE5-4934-88A0-F227FDAE2420@delong.com> <4FDBDD6A.60203@umn.edu> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D469@MAIL1.polartel.local> > > Yes, I agree that there are several other things that need to be > implemented at the same time. And I agree that an 8.3 transfer > terminates legacy status. There are several type sub types of > transactions that occur under 8.2, some of these I feel it would be > unfair to terminate Legacy status for, others I would probably be OK > with it terminating legacy status. Unless we tweeze apart 8.2 into sub > categories, I'd suggest we just allow M&As to keep legacy status, but > how about we discuss that on one of the other threads. > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu I still feel that if a "Legacy" resource is transferred from one party to another for whatever reason or through whatever mechanism it should no longer retain "Legacy" status. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Jun 18 12:29:47 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:29:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FCFC2C4.30302@arin.net> Message-ID: Hello All, I know this proposal has been thoroughly discussed, so I'm not trying to pile onto comments already made. This note is simply to explain my reasoning as an AC member why I will be voting against this proposal as written. >From my point of view, ARIN is responsible for providing registration services for the IP resources allocated to it, and inherited by the IANA function, as defined by the IETF. As a community driven organization, it is also responsible for adhering to the conditions by which the members decide those services should be provided. I feel this proposal attempts to define a class of IP resources separate from those that are defined by the IETF. If the definition were focused on the legacy registrations, I would be inclined to accept it onto the docket, but as it is written, I feel it is outside of the scope of ARIN policy. 2011-5 showed us something similar. We walk a fine line when we look at other concepts like critical infrastructure, or community networks. These concepts try and classify who may be requesting resources or how they are used, in order to define the conditions for providing registration services. Legacy holders of an IP resource are another classification, but the IP resources they use are ASN's or unicast IP space, just like all the others defined by the IETF. All of the definitions in section two of the NRPM focus on who and how the resources are used. None of them attempt to define a difference in the resources themselves. While it is a safe bet that there will be replies to this note saying there is no difference, I personally feel this proposal is out of scope of ARIN policy. Regards, Dan Alexander AC Member On 6/6/12 4:51 PM, "ARIN" wrote: >ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > >The proposal originator revised the proposal. > >Regards, > >Communications and Member Services >American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > >## * ## > > >ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources > >Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > >Proposal Version: 2.0 > >Date: 6 June 2012 > >Proposal type: NEW > >Policy term: PERMANENT > >Policy statement: > >A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number that >satisfies both of the following two criteria: > >(1) it was issued to an entity (other than a Regional Internet >Registry) or individual (the "original legacy holder") prior to ARIN's >inception on Dec 22, 1997 either by an organization authorized by the >United States to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority >("IANA") functions or an Internet Registry; and > >(2) the original legacy holder (or its legal successor or assign) >has not expressly relinquished its registration of such IPv4 address >or Autonomous System Number pursuant to a binding written agreement >with an RIR or the written consent of the original legacy holder (or >its legal successor or assign) submitted to the RIR for subsequent >allocation and assignment of the IPv4 address or Autonomous System >Number to another entity or individual in accordance with the RIR's >number resource policies and membership (or service) agreements. > >Rationale: > >The NRPM does not include a definition of a legacy resource. The ARIN >LRSA contains a possibly reasonable definition of a legacy resource >which is wholly included in this definition with an addendum after >"1997". > >Through a variety of publicly reported transactions and discussions >amongst the community we have learned that there are two distinct >types of addresses, those that are subject to their agreements which >are typically for services with an RIR and those that are not. This >proposal offers a definition that clarifies that distinction and for >the purpose of establishing a basis for policy development supporting >legal process (bankruptcy, estates, et. al.) for un obligated legacy >resources. >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 18 12:58:39 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:58:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D469@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> <13614333-ECE5-4934-88A0-F227FDAE2420@delong.com> <4FDBDD6A.60203@umn.edu> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D469@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote: > I still feel that if a "Legacy" resource is transferred from one party to > another for whatever reason or through whatever mechanism it should no > longer retain "Legacy" status. This thread can be can be a tad confusing at times... Let me try to make plain the existing use of the term "legacy" - There are several categories of IPv4 resources in the Internet Registry System. First, there are number resources which are listed in the registries run by IANA or one of the other five Regional Internet Registries. For IPv4 number resources listed with ARIN, there are some simple categories: Legacy - Those number resources issued from the Internet Registry System prior to ARIN?s inception on December 22, 1997. Some of these resources are under LRSA agreement and therefore under are "Legacy under LRSA" At this point, the significant difference between the LRSA and RSA is the discounted fee schedule. RSA - Those number resources issued by ARIN after its inception on December 22, 1997. These are under a standard RSA agreement. There are also some earlier resources that may have been brought under RSA agreements for parties that had both. When resources are transferred via specified transfer (NRPM 8.3), the recipient receives them subject to an registration services agreement. While we have had cases where this is an LRSA, the default is the RSA and normal fee schedule. In any case, all of the registry policies apply to these number resources. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 18 13:08:12 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:08:12 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187C7A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21887DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189000@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4D93E316-3D89-435D-BE5A-E341AFBDC795@delong.com> <4FDB2D52.3030005@matthew.at> <4FDB3E7B.1030407@umn.edu> <13614333-ECE5-4934-88A0-F227FDAE2420@delong.com> <4FDBDD6A.60203@umn.edu> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D469@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:58 PM, John Curran wrote: > IANA or one of the other five Regional Internet Registries. Should read "one of the other four Regional Internet Registries" (i.e. 5 - 1 <> 5) :-) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jrhett at netconsonance.com Mon Jun 18 16:13:16 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:13:16 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 and ARIN-prop-172 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <3AE893BD-9AA9-4EA9-BAD7-BB435734AC6F@delong.com> References: <3AE893BD-9AA9-4EA9-BAD7-BB435734AC6F@delong.com> Message-ID: <840D723E-4D7F-4FF4-ADA4-F6FABC7E2C5F@netconsonance.com> I would like to say that I feel exactly the same as Owen on all three issues labeled below. There is no need or basis for creating more out-of-compliance networks. I do not believe that there is any significant risk from people choosing to out of the system. Or rather, I do not believe that their choice to do so would affect anybody other than themselves and their clients. I have proposed we kill off both of these. Barring that, I am adamantly against both of them. On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:14 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> - We may be able to add some sort of grandfather clause to allow fewer restrictions on the 8.3 transfer of legacy addresses (and a proper definition of such addresses). However, I don't believe that such exceptions should themselves be transitive. That is to say, the recipient of an 8.3 transfer needs to sign an RSA and become subject to all of the policies in the NRPM. > > I would absolutely oppose this. Once resources are transferred from 8.3, their status should be no different than if they were returned to ARIN and subsequently issued to another organization in two unrelated transactions. > >> - I could see an argument for exempting an 8.3 transfer recipient from needs justification on the initial transfer, but IMO that exemption would need to be time-limited, to perhaps a year, after which time the recipient would be subject to all ARIN policies. > > I would absolutely oppose this as well for the same reasons. There is no reason whatsoever to special case these transfers in such a manner and it is not fair to other resource holders or the community in general to do so. > >> I think the underlying motivation here is to encourage holders of legacy allocations who wish to transfer their space to do so in a way that keep ARIN's database up-to-date. In some cases, that may be an easier sell if some restrictions are relaxed. The supporters of ARIN-prop-171 may not agree, but I would argue that a second goal is to encourage such transfers to occur in such a way that the addresses being transferred are no longer considered legacy after the transfer is complete. > > I think that the combination of RPKI and the desire to have cooperating ISPs be willing to carry the routes is more than enough motivation here. I do not believe that there is a need to grant further special treatment and I would oppose doing so. This would be one more step towards turning ARIN from consensus driven policy towards merely being an auction house. > > Owen -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Mon Jun 18 16:15:12 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:15:12 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> On 6/18/12 11:29 CDT, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Hello All, > > I know this proposal has been thoroughly discussed, so I'm not trying to > pile onto comments already made. This note is simply to explain my > reasoning as an AC member why I will be voting against this proposal as > written. As currently written I agree with you. But I think Scott's suggested changes fixes most of my objections and I believe this proposal could lead to useful policy with those changes. >>From my point of view, ARIN is responsible for providing registration > services for the IP resources allocated to it, and inherited by the IANA > function, as defined by the IETF. As a community driven organization, it > is also responsible for adhering to the conditions by which the members > decide those services should be provided. > > I feel this proposal attempts to define a class of IP resources separate > from those that are defined by the IETF. If the definition were focused on > the legacy registrations, I would be inclined to accept it onto the > docket, but as it is written, I feel it is outside of the scope of ARIN > policy. 2011-5 showed us something similar. > > We walk a fine line when we look at other concepts like critical > infrastructure, or community networks. These concepts try and classify who > may be requesting resources or how they are used, in order to define the > conditions for providing registration services. Legacy holders of an IP > resource are another classification, but the IP resources they use are > ASN's or unicast IP space, just like all the others defined by the IETF. > > All of the definitions in section two of the NRPM focus on who and how the > resources are used. None of them attempt to define a difference in the > resources themselves. While it is a safe bet that there will be replies to > this note saying there is no difference, I personally feel this proposal > is out of scope of ARIN policy. While I wish there were no distinctions between legacy and non-legacy resources, realistically I think there are at least a few practical distinctions. As has been pointed out by several people in the discussion, the contract issue is a big distinction, and some feel that is only practical distinction. Also, at least partially because there is no contract, I feel there is another distinction, there is no mechanism in policy or contract to recover address space from defunct organizations with legacy resources, unless someone else commits resource fraud and start using them. Resources covered under RSA or LRSA are recoverable after non-payment of fees, and if someone else pays the fees and uses the resources this is also clearly resource fraud. But there is no clear policy or contract under which ARIN can recover resources from an organization that no longer exists, prior to some fraud taking place. Honestly, I think this is a big problem and seems clearly related to legacy resources and not other resources. Others, incorrectly in my opinion, also believe that ARIN has no authority over legacy resources or that some or all ARIN policies doesn't apply to legacy resources. Therefore, I believe it is important to define what legacy resources are and the limited differences they do have, and also solve the issue of recovery of legacy resources from defunct organizations. ARIN policy being mostly silent on the issue of legacy resources avoids creating a distinction between types resources, which as you suggest has its advantages. However, this silence also fosters the misconception that ARIN policies do not apply to legacy resources. I know it is a catch 22. I guess we could not define legacy resources and only use the term "resources assigned by a predecessor registry", but I think just defining legacy resources would be much clearer and easier to understand for most people. > Regards, > Dan Alexander > AC Member -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 18 16:44:26 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:44:26 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> Message-ID: <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:15 PM, David Farmer wrote: > ARIN policy being mostly silent on the issue of legacy resources avoids creating a distinction between types resources, which as you suggest has its advantages. However, this silence also fosters the misconception that ARIN policies do not apply to legacy resources. I know it is a catch 22. ARIN is the Internet number registry for the region and ARIN policies apply to all number resources in the ARIN registry. If you feel that it would improve the situation to put the above into ARIN's number resource policy, then that is a much simpler task than making policy specific to legacy resources. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Mon Jun 18 16:50:01 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:50:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4FDF9479.8000706@umn.edu> On 6/18/12 15:44 CDT, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:15 PM, David Farmer wrote: > >> ARIN policy being mostly silent on the issue of legacy resources avoids creating a distinction between types resources, which as you suggest has its advantages. However, this silence also fosters the misconception that ARIN policies do not apply to legacy resources. I know it is a catch 22. > > ARIN is the Internet number registry for the region and ARIN > policies apply to all number resources in the ARIN registry. > > If you feel that it would improve the situation to put the > above into ARIN's number resource policy, then that is > a much simpler task than making policy specific to legacy resources. Yes, that would be simpler. However, without clarifying also legacy resources I'm not sure it would gain consensus. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Mon Jun 18 18:02:34 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:02:34 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> Message-ID: David, I think you are missing my point. All the differences you mention below whether a resource is under LRSA, reclaimable, fees, etc. are all differences in the agreements that ARIN has with the resource holder as to the services offered. These points are separate from what the ones and zeros translate to. Even Scott's language contains "A legacy resource is an IPv4 address or Autonomous System Number...." which tries to define a special class of IP resources. ARIN policy defines different types of users and different conditions by which services are offered. It does not define address resources. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it is a big one when you try and put it in the definitions section of the policy manual. ARIN was given administration over the IP resources as they were defined by the IETF and delegated by IANA. If you want to refer to what people are calling "legacy resources" as the ARIN registration that someone is holding without contract, that is one thing. If you are saying that special rights are granted to the series of ones and zeros that were assigned prior to the formation of ARIN, it is a different discussion. Also, I never suggested the advantages of silence or a lack of distinction that you mention below. I'm not sure where you got that from my comments. -Dan On 6/18/12 4:15 PM, "David Farmer" wrote: > > >On 6/18/12 11:29 CDT, Alexander, Daniel wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> I know this proposal has been thoroughly discussed, so I'm not trying to >> pile onto comments already made. This note is simply to explain my >> reasoning as an AC member why I will be voting against this proposal as >> written. > >As currently written I agree with you. But I think Scott's suggested >changes fixes most of my objections and I believe this proposal could >lead to useful policy with those changes. > >>>From my point of view, ARIN is responsible for providing registration >> services for the IP resources allocated to it, and inherited by the IANA >> function, as defined by the IETF. As a community driven organization, it >> is also responsible for adhering to the conditions by which the members >> decide those services should be provided. >> >> I feel this proposal attempts to define a class of IP resources separate >> from those that are defined by the IETF. If the definition were focused >>on >> the legacy registrations, I would be inclined to accept it onto the >> docket, but as it is written, I feel it is outside of the scope of ARIN >> policy. 2011-5 showed us something similar. >> >> We walk a fine line when we look at other concepts like critical >> infrastructure, or community networks. These concepts try and classify >>who >> may be requesting resources or how they are used, in order to define the >> conditions for providing registration services. Legacy holders of an IP >> resource are another classification, but the IP resources they use are >> ASN's or unicast IP space, just like all the others defined by the IETF. >> >> All of the definitions in section two of the NRPM focus on who and how >>the >> resources are used. None of them attempt to define a difference in the >> resources themselves. While it is a safe bet that there will be replies >>to >> this note saying there is no difference, I personally feel this proposal >> is out of scope of ARIN policy. > >While I wish there were no distinctions between legacy and non-legacy >resources, realistically I think there are at least a few practical >distinctions. As has been pointed out by several people in the >discussion, the contract issue is a big distinction, and some feel that >is only practical distinction. Also, at least partially because there is >no contract, I feel there is another distinction, there is no mechanism >in policy or contract to recover address space from defunct >organizations with legacy resources, unless someone else commits >resource fraud and start using them. Resources covered under RSA or >LRSA are recoverable after non-payment of fees, and if someone else pays >the fees and uses the resources this is also clearly resource fraud. >But there is no clear policy or contract under which ARIN can recover >resources from an organization that no longer exists, prior to some >fraud taking place. Honestly, I think this is a big problem and seems >clearly related to legacy resources and not other resources. > >Others, incorrectly in my opinion, also believe that ARIN has no >authority over legacy resources or that some or all ARIN policies >doesn't apply to legacy resources. Therefore, I believe it is important >to define what legacy resources are and the limited differences they do >have, and also solve the issue of recovery of legacy resources from >defunct organizations. > >ARIN policy being mostly silent on the issue of legacy resources avoids >creating a distinction between types resources, which as you suggest has >its advantages. However, this silence also fosters the misconception >that ARIN policies do not apply to legacy resources. I know it is a >catch 22. I guess we could not define legacy resources and only use the >term "resources assigned by a predecessor registry", but I think just >defining legacy resources would be much clearer and easier to understand >for most people. > >> Regards, >> Dan Alexander >> AC Member > >-- >=============================================== >David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu >Networking & Telecommunication Services >Office of Information Technology >University of Minnesota >2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 >Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >=============================================== > > From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 19:15:51 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:15:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 and ARIN-prop-172 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: .... > So here's a stab at what I think should happen: > > ?- 8.2 transfers should not require a change in the status of the addresses > being held, except to require that status to be contractually codified (by > the recipient signing an LRSA as a condition of updating ARIN's database). > ?In particular, the LRSA doesn't make the addresses it covers subject to > utilization requirements. I am not sure I would support my own suggestion, but I would instead propose that any transfer would move to the next level of contract. In other words, one *could* transfer addresses not currently under LRSA/RSA to a LRSA contract should the recipient insist, but any LRSA (or RSA) addresses need to be transferred under a full RSA contract. In my mind, this would let transfers for which the addresses are essentially incidental to the M&A process move smoothly, while those for which addresses are the point of the M&A process be more onerous. Or perhaps I am completely missing the point. Gary From springer at inlandnet.com Mon Jun 18 19:47:08 2012 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> Message-ID: <20120618151441.R31423@mail.inlandnet.com> I am replying to Dan AND David, but I am going to pick on one of David's statements down below. On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 6/18/12 11:29 CDT, Alexander, Daniel wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> I know this proposal has been thoroughly discussed, so I'm not trying to >> pile onto comments already made. This note is simply to explain my >> reasoning as an AC member why I will be voting against this proposal as >> written. Quite a bit of game left on this one, but I agree with you so far. Opposed. > As currently written I agree with you. But I think Scott's suggested changes > fixes most of my objections and I believe this proposal could lead to useful > policy with those changes. > While I wish there were no distinctions between legacy and non-legacy > resources, realistically I think there are at least a few practical > distinctions. As has been pointed out by several people in the discussion, > the contract issue is a big distinction, and some feel that is only practical > distinction. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, at least partially because there is no contract, > > > I feel > there is another distinction, there is no mechanism in policy or contract to > recover address space from defunct organizations with legacy resources, > unless someone else commits resource fraud and start using them. IANAL, like a lot of other folks on this list with that property, but I do have to ask the question re: the above emphasized statement: Really? I'm pretty sure there are valid contracts (verbal and otherwise) for which there is no document. When I got my IANAL certificate, I thought I knew that a valid contract required only an exchange of consideration and assent by both parties. I do understand that there has been considerable assertion that there is no contract with "legacy" address resource holders, but has this been stipulated or in some other way achieved reality? The exchange of consideration that I have always imputed is: I will give you these numbers -> I will go build the Intertubez. And how could there not be assent? If that _IS_ the bargain, I think the pioneers get a permanent let pass on unwanted changes to the status quo. If, on the other hand, there was, in fact, no valid exchange of consideration or mutual assent, do these folks have any enduring rights of use at all? In particular, I think they or their agents don't get to expand their original bargain to preserve a potential windfall. Invisible hand be damned. Note well: I am not suggesting an assault on the status of legacy numbers or their holders, but if proposers be proposing changes to policy toward these folks, perhaps the solidification of first principles may be in order. Is this even answerable? I don't think I gave any advice here. John "Not a Lawyer" Springer My opinions only, not my employer's. From farmer at umn.edu Mon Jun 18 19:54:56 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:54:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20120618151441.R31423@mail.inlandnet.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <20120618151441.R31423@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: <4FDFBFD0.3060005@umn.edu> On 6/18/12 18:47 CDT, John Springer wrote: > I am replying to Dan AND David, but I am going to pick on one of David's > statements down below. > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, David Farmer wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/18/12 11:29 CDT, Alexander, Daniel wrote: >>> Hello All, >>> >>> I know this proposal has been thoroughly discussed, so I'm not trying to >>> pile onto comments already made. This note is simply to explain my >>> reasoning as an AC member why I will be voting against this proposal as >>> written. > > Quite a bit of game left on this one, but I agree with you so far. Opposed. > >> As currently written I agree with you. But I think Scott's suggested >> changes fixes most of my objections and I believe this proposal could >> lead to useful policy with those changes. > > > > >> While I wish there were no distinctions between legacy and non-legacy >> resources, realistically I think there are at least a few practical >> distinctions. As has been pointed out by several people in the >> discussion, the contract issue is a big distinction, and some feel >> that is only practical distinction. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, at least partially because there is no contract, >> >> >> I feel there is another distinction, there is no mechanism in policy >> or contract to recover address space from defunct organizations with >> legacy resources, unless someone else commits resource fraud and start >> using them. > > > IANAL, like a lot of other folks on this list with that property, but I > do have to ask the question re: the above emphasized statement: Really? > > I'm pretty sure there are valid contracts (verbal and otherwise) for > which there is no document. When I got my IANAL certificate, I thought I > knew that a valid contract required only an exchange of consideration > and assent by both parties. OK you got me, I misspoke or was speaking to loosely; Yes, I agree there are informal agreements, not written agreements, I made much the same point over the weekend. > I do understand that there has been considerable assertion that there is > no contract with "legacy" address resource holders, but has this been > stipulated or in some other way achieved reality? > > The exchange of consideration that I have always imputed is: I will give > you these numbers -> I will go build the Intertubez. And how could there > not be assent? If that _IS_ the bargain, I think the pioneers get a > permanent let pass on unwanted changes to the status quo. > > If, on the other hand, there was, in fact, no valid exchange of > consideration or mutual assent, do these folks have any enduring rights > of use at all? In particular, I think they or their agents don't get to > expand their original bargain to preserve a potential windfall. > Invisible hand be damned. > > Note well: I am not suggesting an assault on the status of legacy > numbers or their holders, but if proposers be proposing changes to > policy toward these folks, perhaps the solidification of first > principles may be in order. > > Is this even answerable? > > I don't think I gave any advice here. > > John "Not a Lawyer" Springer > > My opinions only, not my employer's. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From mysidia at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 21:08:59 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:08:59 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/18/12, John Curran wrote: > ARIN is the Internet number registry for the region and ARIN > policies apply to all number resources in the ARIN registry. I would suggest something like, er: 4.6.7 All ARIN listed resources are subject to Number resource policies Number policies apply equally to all resources in the ARIN registry, including legacy allocations made by previous registries which are placed under administration of ARIN. ARIN requires a signed RSA for all resources listed in the ARIN number registry, and also as a requirement for the privilege of transferring, reassigning, or reallocating any number resource.. ARIN will list legacy allocations and resources not compliant with the signed RSA requirement in the ARIN WHOIS directory, only on a best-effort basis, and may label such entries as Non-Compliant or Non-Validated Resource. ARIN will accept contact information update requests for non-compliant resources that ARIN is able to verify, and maintain WHOIS listings for non-compliant resources until such time as the registration is removed, revoked, or brought into compliance, or ARIN is shown proof that listed WHOIS information is inaccurate, invalid, not a responsive contact, not the right contact, or a new attempt by the non-compliant resource holder to transfer, repurpose, or delegate any portion of the resource has been attempted, without contacting ARIN to request approval. ARIN may remove assignments of non-compliant number resources upon finding evidence that the resource is abandoned or unused for a period of 3 months or longer, if there is no signed RSA, and after reasonable efforts to contact a resource holder have been attempted and failed, or if contact is made, and a resource holder fails to sign the RSA within 30 days. > /John -- -JH From owen at delong.com Mon Jun 18 21:32:50 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:32:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <3CD7C686-C50F-4537-8635-CEBBE2B7B1F8@delong.com> On Jun 18, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 6/18/12, John Curran wrote: >> ARIN is the Internet number registry for the region and ARIN >> policies apply to all number resources in the ARIN registry. > > I would suggest something like, er: > > 4.6.7 All ARIN listed resources are subject to Number resource policies > Number policies apply equally to all resources in the ARIN > registry, including legacy > allocations made by previous registries which are placed under > administration of ARIN. > > ARIN requires a signed RSA for all resources listed in the ARIN > number registry, > and also as a requirement for the privilege of transferring, > reassigning, or reallocating any number resource.. > > ARIN will list legacy allocations and resources not compliant with > the signed RSA requirement in the ARIN WHOIS directory, > only on a best-effort basis, and may label such entries as > Non-Compliant or Non-Validated Resource. > > ARIN will accept contact information update requests for > non-compliant resources that ARIN is able to verify, > and maintain WHOIS listings for non-compliant resources until such > time as the registration is > removed, revoked, or brought into compliance, or ARIN is shown > proof that listed WHOIS information > is inaccurate, invalid, not a responsive contact, not the right > contact, or a new attempt > by the non-compliant resource holder to transfer, repurpose, or > delegate any portion of the resource has been attempted, without > contacting ARIN to request approval. > > > ARIN may remove assignments of non-compliant number resources upon > finding evidence that the resource is abandoned or unused > for a period of 3 months or longer, if there is no signed RSA, and > after reasonable efforts > to contact a resource holder have been attempted and failed, or > if contact is made, and a > resource holder fails to sign the RSA within 30 days. As much as I like this, I think that it goes a little too far and creates an unnecessary legal burden for ARIN. If you deleted everything after the last or in the last sentence, I would support as written. I recommend submitting to policy as a proposal template. Let me know if you'd like assistance filling out the template. Owen From farmer at umn.edu Mon Jun 18 22:04:12 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:04:12 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> Jimmy, Section 4 applies to IPv4 resources, this issue is more fundamental. I have submitted the following policy proposal. ------ Policy statement: Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the Internet Registry system. Rationale: There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to legacy resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are legacy-issued resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within North American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated in the region. ------ On 6/18/12 20:08 CDT, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 6/18/12, John Curran wrote: >> ARIN is the Internet number registry for the region and ARIN >> policies apply to all number resources in the ARIN registry. > > I would suggest something like, er: > > 4.6.7 All ARIN listed resources are subject to Number resource policies > Number policies apply equally to all resources in the ARIN > registry, including legacy > allocations made by previous registries which are placed under > administration of ARIN. > > ARIN requires a signed RSA for all resources listed in the ARIN > number registry, > and also as a requirement for the privilege of transferring, > reassigning, or reallocating any number resource.. > > ARIN will list legacy allocations and resources not compliant with > the signed RSA requirement in the ARIN WHOIS directory, > only on a best-effort basis, and may label such entries as > Non-Compliant or Non-Validated Resource. > > ARIN will accept contact information update requests for > non-compliant resources that ARIN is able to verify, > and maintain WHOIS listings for non-compliant resources until such > time as the registration is > removed, revoked, or brought into compliance, or ARIN is shown > proof that listed WHOIS information > is inaccurate, invalid, not a responsive contact, not the right > contact, or a new attempt > by the non-compliant resource holder to transfer, repurpose, or > delegate any portion of the resource has been attempted, without > contacting ARIN to request approval. > > > ARIN may remove assignments of non-compliant number resources upon > finding evidence that the resource is abandoned or unused > for a period of 3 months or longer, if there is no signed RSA, and > after reasonable efforts > to contact a resource holder have been attempted and failed, or > if contact is made, and a > resource holder fails to sign the RSA within 30 days. This seems to be requiring all legacy holders to sign an RSA, I'm concerned about that level of a change. And that there is an implication that this should happen within 3 month. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From mysidia at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 23:12:21 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:12:21 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> Message-ID: On 6/18/12, David Farmer wrote: > This seems to be requiring all legacy holders to sign an RSA, I'm Well, the legacy holders who have not yet signed a RSA are in an "abnormal" situation. They might choose not to, but the policy ought to say that they should. After the 31 December expiration date of the LRSA offer, the policy should say must have a signed RSA. > concerned about that level of a change. And that there is an > implication that this should happen within 3 month. I am not suggesting anyone be forced to sign a RSA in any specific time frame, for resources that are being utilized by the organization that the legacy registry assigned resources to. However, there should be an option available for demonstrably abandoned resources to be reclaimed by ARIN. > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu -- -JH From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 23:41:59 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:41:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 6/18/12, David Farmer wrote: >> This seems to be requiring all legacy holders to sign an RSA, I'm > > Well, the legacy holders who have not yet signed a RSA are in an > "abnormal" situation. > They might choose not to, but the policy ought to say that they should. It can't. The legalities around legacy holders are not resolved as you saw demonstrated by some of the discussion here. I'm not entirely certain who's in an abnormal position; legacy addresses are transferring as assets. That is at least one state. Whether that's an abnormal state remains to be seen. >> concerned about that level of a change. ?And that there is an >> implication that this should happen within 3 month. > > I am not suggesting anyone be forced to sign a RSA in any specific time frame, > for resources that are being utilized ?by the organization that the legacy > registry assigned resources to. > > However, there should be an option available for demonstrably abandoned > resources to be reclaimed by ARIN. There is. Proposal 171 provides for a process to at least pro-actively ascertain who the rightful holder of legacy addresses are in the event of a question. "8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications". The language is a bit raw, but you probably get the point as is. Best, -M< From mysidia at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 00:13:31 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:13:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> Message-ID: On 6/18/12, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >> They might choose not to, but the policy ought to say that they should. > It can't. The legalities around legacy holders are not resolved as you > saw demonstrated by some of the discussion here. I'm not entirely The ARIN community certainly can put policy like that in place, and it may be prudent to do so sooner than later, in order to provide declarative assertion to ensure any legacy holders are made aware that their resources are subject to numbering policies, always were. If a legacy holder wants to claim ARIN policies do not apply to their resource, they can do so all they want, they can just ignore any requirements added, as they have determined it does not apply to them. By ignoring it, they take on a risk, that the policy might be enforceable against them at a future date, future revision, etc.. As far as reporting a resource unvalidated: ARIN controls what is published in ARIN's database. We can't rule out the remote possibility that a legacy registrant is able to convince some court in some country, that they have a right to compel ARIN to publish something specific in the database or forbid ARIN from publishing something specific, but that would be something for ARIN's lawyers to sort out. -- -JH From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 19 00:49:34 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:49:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> Message-ID: <8035CF5C-722C-46EC-9FF4-D0A495E446C4@delong.com> On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >> On 6/18/12, David Farmer wrote: >>> This seems to be requiring all legacy holders to sign an RSA, I'm >> >> Well, the legacy holders who have not yet signed a RSA are in an >> "abnormal" situation. >> They might choose not to, but the policy ought to say that they should. > > It can't. The legalities around legacy holders are not resolved as you > saw demonstrated by some of the discussion here. I'm not entirely > certain who's in an abnormal position; legacy addresses are > transferring as assets. That is at least one state. Whether that's an > abnormal state remains to be seen. > They are not transferring within policy unless the recipient signs an RSA. As to whether policy can say this or not, policy absolutely can say it and I'm not entirely sure whether it should or not. Whether or not a policy that says that can be made to have any actual impact is another open question. >>> concerned about that level of a change. And that there is an >>> implication that this should happen within 3 month. >> >> I am not suggesting anyone be forced to sign a RSA in any specific time frame, >> for resources that are being utilized by the organization that the legacy >> registry assigned resources to. >> >> However, there should be an option available for demonstrably abandoned >> resources to be reclaimed by ARIN. > > > There is. Proposal 171 provides for a process to at least pro-actively > ascertain who the rightful holder of legacy addresses are in the event > of a question. "8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications". > Perhaps if we strip 171 down to jus that provision, it might actually be palatable, though I think that provision also needs some work. Owen From mlindsey at lb3law.com Tue Jun 19 03:23:42 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:23:42 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> John, The core syllogism you constructed below is impressive (and witty). I do have some observations about your premises. * * * I'm pretty sure there are valid contracts (verbal and otherwise) for which there is no document. When I got my IANAL certificate, I thought I knew that a valid contract required only an exchange of consideration and assent by both parties. << M Lindsey >> If by "valid", you mean enforceable, you're missing some necessary steps to support this assertion. The party trying to enforce an "informal" oral agreement has to prove the existence of the agreement and the parties' assent to the term or condition at issue. Both of these are very difficult hurdles to overcome. I do understand that there has been considerable assertion that there is no contract with "legacy" address resource holders, but has this been stipulated or in some other way achieved reality? << M Lindsey >> As mentioned above, you've placed the burden on the wrong party. Those asserting the existence of an undocumented informal/oral agreement bear the burden to prove the existence of the agreement, and establish its terms and conditions. The exchange of consideration that I have always imputed is: I will give you these numbers -> I will go build the Intertubez. And how could there not be assent? If that _IS_ the bargain, I think the pioneers get a permanent let pass on unwanted changes to the status quo. << M Lindsey >> I suspect that I'm not catching all of the nuisance in your statement above, but you appear to be removing an important fact. Individuals and companies serving as US contractors -- while acting on the USG's behalf -- gave out the legacy IP numbers to end users and network operators. If, on the other hand, there was, in fact, no valid exchange of consideration or mutual assent, do these folks have any enduring rights of use at all? In particular, I think they or their agents don't get to expand their original bargain to preserve a potential windfall. Invisible hand be damned. << M Lindsey >> If there was no original contract between any given legacy holder and the person/entity serving the role of Internet registrar at the time, then there is no original bargain between these parties to expand or contract. This, however, does not mean that the legacy holder lacks any rights in its numbers. It simply means that we must look somewhere else to define the scope of those rights. Note well: I am not suggesting an assault on the status of legacy numbers or their holders, but if proposers be proposing changes to policy toward these folks, perhaps the solidification of first principles may be in order. << M Lindsey >> I'm gathering that this sentiment is at the core of much of the opposition to proposals 171-173. I'd like to express an alternative sentiment in the form of a question. Can/should transfer policies be designed to further important policy goals and effectively (and practically) address the challenges facing the ARIN community without inviting disputes on first principles between ARIN and off-contract legacy resource holders? I don't think I gave any advice here. << M Lindsey >> Nice! Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-2564 Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlindsey at lb3law.com Tue Jun 19 03:40:14 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:40:14 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D41@lb3ex01> On 6/18/12, Jimmy Hess wrote: I would suggest something like, er: 4.6.7 All ARIN listed resources are subject to Number resource policies Number policies apply equally to all resources in the ARIN registry, including legacy allocations made by previous registries which are placed under administration of ARIN. ARIN requires a signed RSA for all resources listed in the ARIN number registry, and also as a requirement for the privilege of transferring, reassigning, or reallocating any number resource.. ARIN will list legacy allocations and resources not compliant with the signed RSA requirement in the ARIN WHOIS directory, only on a best-effort basis, and may label such entries as Non-Compliant or Non-Validated Resource. ARIN will accept contact information update requests for non-compliant resources that ARIN is able to verify, and maintain WHOIS listings for non-compliant resources until such time as the registration is removed, revoked, or brought into compliance, or ARIN is shown proof that listed WHOIS information is inaccurate, invalid, not a responsive contact, not the right contact, or a new attempt by the non-compliant resource holder to transfer, repurpose, or delegate any portion of the resource has been attempted, without contacting ARIN to request approval. ARIN may remove assignments of non-compliant number resources upon finding evidence that the resource is abandoned or unused for a period of 3 months or longer, if there is no signed RSA, and after reasonable efforts to contact a resource holder have been attempted and failed, or if contact is made, and a resource holder fails to sign the RSA within 30 days. << M Lindsey >> Adopting and implementing the above policy proposal would most certainly (a) invite formal disputes with legacy resource holders, and (b) provide the alternative Internet registries with great marketing material! Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-2564 Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 19 04:03:20 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:03:20 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> Message-ID: <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> As one of those legacy holders, I do not see what authority ARIN has with regards to those resources at all. I recognize neither your authority to force me to sign an agreement, not to expropriate those addresses assigned to me by those who came before you. And whether I am using them at a moment in time or not, does not seem relevant. If I trusted ARIN and found its services of value, I would sign. But neither of those is the case, hence, I haven't. avri Jimmy Hess wrote: >On 6/18/12, David Farmer wrote: >> This seems to be requiring all legacy holders to sign an RSA, I'm > >Well, the legacy holders who have not yet signed a RSA are in an >"abnormal" situation. >They might choose not to, but the policy ought to say that they should. > >After the 31 December expiration date of the LRSA offer, the policy >should say must have a signed RSA. > >> concerned about that level of a change. And that there is an >> implication that this should happen within 3 month. > >I am not suggesting anyone be forced to sign a RSA in any specific time >frame, >for resources that are being utilized by the organization that the >legacy >registry assigned resources to. > >However, there should be an option available for demonstrably abandoned >resources to be reclaimed by ARIN. > >> =============================================== >> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu >-- >-JH >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 06:32:57 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:32:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Nature of registry-issued IP address blocks In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <3DA859CE-9886-4AA5-8290-8D5652ABD105@corp.arin.net> Marc - When one actually considers the nature of registry-issued IP address blocks, the situation becomes much, much simpler: - Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are simply numbers in a range defined by the IP protocol specification. In the case of IPv4, this range is 0 through 2**32. - For the IP protocol to work, IP addresses have to be unique among all devices within the scope that they are used - Organizations & companies may configure their equipment with any IP addresses they want (and do) - Internet service providers (ISPs) may configure their equipment with any IP addresses they want (and do) - Having an IP address issued to you does not provide you any recourse against others configuring that IP address in their equipment, whether for private networking or the global Internet - Ergo, IP addresses are not any form of license to connect to the Internet nor do they automatically confer any rights with respect to the community of Internet service providers - IP addresses are just numbers. People configure these numbers into their equipment everyday, just as people write unique names on each their file folders. - If you want IP addresses that have more significance, then *you have to get them from a registry* - Having IP addresses which are unique with respect to others requires a registry (or a coordinated system of registries) to issue IP address blocks from a single pool of numbers - A block of IP numbers isn?t unique except within a given registry system, i.e. it is the registry, via its services, processes, and policies that provides and maintains this uniqueness. - There are many registries out there that issue and maintain unique IP address blocks for their own use (e.g. some large corporations, university networks, supplier networks) - Any of these may be using IP addresses which conflict with the use of the same IP numbers on the Internet - *Globally-unique IP addresses* requires an Internet Registry that is global in scope and used by many ISPs - The US Government, through a variety of means over the years, has provided for issuance of unique IP Address blocks from a single global pool for purposes of Internet research, facilitating Internet connectivity, as well as for private use which would not conflict with Internet uses. - This ?Internet Registry" system (consisting of the RIRs and IANA) coordinates to provide for uniqueness of IP Address blocks from among a pool of all possible IP numbers - Issued blocks of IP Addresses are only globally unique via their registration in the Internet Registry System - Service providers find obtaining IP Address space from the Internet Registry System to be invaluable in avoiding conflicts, particularly with respect to assigning unique IP Addresses to customer connections If legacy address holders want to have the benefits of globally unique numbers, then they are inherently participants in this system, as one can't have the benefits of globally uniqueness without registration in the Internet Registry System which provides for such. Indeed, it is the misconception that various integer ranges, originating from within the system, have independent meaning outside of this system which creates the conundrum. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 08:56:57 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:56:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> Message-ID: <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 4:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > As one of those legacy holders, I do not see what authority ARIN has with regards to those resources at all. I recognize neither your authority to force me to sign an agreement, not to expropriate those addresses assigned to me by those who came before you. And whether I am using them at a moment in time or not, does not seem relevant. Avri - Your resources are unique with respect to others only because they are assigned to you within the Internet Registry System. You gain the benefit of this unique registration, but it comes with obligations as well. ARIN doesn't seek to "force you to sign an agreement" but does require you to comply with whatever policies the community develops regarding the registry. This means that if, for example, new policies require that you have an abuse contact in your registration, then that becomes required for participation in the registry. Your resources were assigned to you as part of a system, and it's up to your if you wish to continue to be part of that system and its policies. If you choose not to participate, then just realize that the community of global service providers who do participate will expect that the number resources in the registry will be reissued to another party, and have set policies for running the registry to that effect. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 08:56:56 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:56:56 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> Message-ID: HI Avri, On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > As one of those legacy holders, I do not see what authority ARIN has with regards to those resources at all. Do you not see ARIN as the successor registry to the organisation that allocated the resources to you? > ?I recognize neither your authority to force me to sign an agreement, not to expropriate those addresses assigned to me by those who came before you. And whether I am using them at a moment in time or not, does not seem relevant. Were there any conditions under which you accepted the resources? > > If I trusted ARIN and found its services of value, I would sign. But neither of those is the case, hence, I haven't. > Is not an entry in the WHOIS Db of value ;-? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 19 09:10:55 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:10:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218AE2C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> So here's the game of chicken I was warning you about. John, you are making the startling claim that ARIN (let's not hide behind fancy terms like "community of global service providers") will de-register and reassign legacy address blocks if a legacy holder doesn't play ball with it. But you have no contractual authority over those resources, a fact which exposes your organization to lawsuits if it acts in such a manner. Worse, the REAL community of service providers may or may not go along with your attempt to unilaterally and extralegally assert authority over the resources; some of them might be quite happy to continue routing to Avri's blocks, or to whoever Avri assigns them to. I don't care what kind of piffle you put forward in the next messages, the simple fact is that ARIN does not and cannot speak for all the world's service providers and thus cannot guarantee that this does not happen. So, your assertions create a) a serious risk of litigation b) a serious risk of resource conflicts developing on the Internet c) strengthen demand for development of an alternative registry and for what?? What important value is achieved through this precipitous stance that could not be more easily achieved simply by recognizing legacy holders' grandfathered rights and dealing with that exceptional status for the transition period in the migration to v6? I suggest you step back from this precipice, take a deep breath, reclaim your wits, and think about how to handle this problem again. It is not really that difficult a problem if you don't turn it into a pointless power struggle. --MM > Your resources are unique with respect to others only because they are > assigned to you within the Internet Registry System. You gain the > benefit of this unique registration, but it comes with obligations as > well. > > ARIN doesn't seek to "force you to sign an agreement" > but does require you to comply with whatever policies the community > develops regarding the registry. This means that if, for example, new > policies require that you have an abuse contact in your registration, > then that becomes required for participation in the registry. > > Your resources were assigned to you as part of a system, and it's up > to your if you wish to continue to be part of that system and its > policies. If you choose not to participate, then just realize that the > community of global service providers who do participate will expect > that the number resources in the registry will be reissued to another > party, and have set policies for running the registry to that effect. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 09:34:46 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:34:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218AE2C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218AE2C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <94399B65-B91F-48DB-B261-9DE365A3F2CD@arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > So here's the game of chicken I was warning you about. > > John, you are making the startling claim that ARIN (let's not hide behind fancy terms like "community of global service providers") will de-register and reassign legacy address blocks if a legacy holder doesn't play ball with it. But you have no contractual authority over those resources, a fact which exposes your organization to lawsuits if it acts in such a manner. Milton - ARIN will run the registry in accordance with its policies, and we have authority to operate the registry in that manner. The registry entries are definitely updated by the policies that this community sets, and are the resources to which I refer. > What important value is achieved through this precipitous stance that could not be more easily achieved simply by recognizing legacy holders' grandfathered rights and dealing with that exceptional status for the transition period in the migration to v6? Actually, ARIN does exactly that, and offers to formalize those rights via the LRSA with a reduced fee schedule. > I suggest you step back from this precipice, take a deep breath, reclaim your wits, and think about how to handle this problem again. It is not really that difficult a problem if you don't turn it into a pointless power struggle. Milton - It's simple reality, not a power struggle. We actually don't get any choice in running the registry except according to the policies that are developed by those in the region. It's the very reason that we were formed, so we don't get any choice. Resource holders should participate in the process to develop policies that they find productive in their use of number resources. As noted before, if parties think that they have some rights to the registry which did not come with responsibilities of compliance to policies of the registry, then indeed they may need to pursue those elsewhere, since that doesn't match the reality of how the Internet Registry system and ARIN were both formed. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From info at arin.net Tue Jun 19 11:55:35 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:55:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry Proposal Originator: David Farmer Proposal Version: 1.0 Date: 19 June 2012 Proposal type: Modify Policy term: Permanent Policy statement: Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the Internet Registry system. Rationale: There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to legacy resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are legacy-issued resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within North American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated in the region. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From cgrundemann at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 12:14:12 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:14:12 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hi Avri, Thanks for posting! Yours is a unique opinion (at least in my 5 or so years of reading PPML) and as such I greatly value learning more about your viewpoint, if you'd be kind enough to elaborate a bit. My questions are inline, below. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > As one of those legacy holders, I do not see what authority ARIN has with regards to those resources at all. ?I recognize neither your authority to force me to sign an agreement, not to expropriate those addresses assigned to me by those who came before you. And whether I am using them at a moment in time or not, does not seem relevant. Can you tell me who assigned your (or are you speaking for an organization?) "legacy" resources (who is "those who came before" ARIN in this case specifically)? Can you also tell us what the terms of that registration where/are in your eyes? Was there any contract or agreement of any kind involved? > If I trusted ARIN and found its services of value, I would sign. But neither of those is the case, hence, I haven't. First, when you say you do not trust ARIN, do you mean the ARIN community, or ARIN the organization? In either case, why is it that you do not trust ARIN? Is there a specific action or instance that lead to this mistrust? A trend that provoked it? Second, can you expound on what you mean when you say that you do not find ARINs services of value? Do you not find value in ensuring the uniqueness of the addresses assigned to you? Or perhaps you are being more technically specific and you do not find value in WHOIS and RDNS (in-addr.arpa records)? Thanks in advance for your candid reply! Cheers, ~Chris > avri > > > Jimmy Hess wrote: > >>On 6/18/12, David Farmer wrote: >>> This seems to be requiring all legacy holders to sign an RSA, I'm >> >>Well, the legacy holders who have not yet signed a RSA are in an >>"abnormal" situation. >>They might choose not to, but the policy ought to say that they should. >> >>After the 31 December expiration date of the LRSA offer, ?the policy >>should say must have a signed RSA. >> >>> concerned about that level of a change. ?And that there is an >>> implication that this should happen within 3 month. >> >>I am not suggesting anyone be forced to sign a RSA in any specific time >>frame, >>for resources that are being utilized ?by the organization that the >>legacy >>registry assigned resources to. >> >>However, there should be an option available for demonstrably abandoned >>resources to be reclaimed by ARIN. >> >>> =============================================== >>> David Farmer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email:farmer at umn.edu >>-- >>-JH >>_______________________________________________ >>PPML >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Jun 19 12:57:54 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:57:54 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <3CD7C686-C50F-4537-8635-CEBBE2B7B1F8@delong.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <3CD7C686-C50F-4537-8635-CEBBE2B7B1F8@delong.com> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D47C@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:33 PM > To: Jimmy Hess > Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > > On 6/18/12, John Curran wrote: > >> ARIN is the Internet number registry for the region and ARIN > >> policies apply to all number resources in the ARIN registry. > > > > I would suggest something like, er: > > > > 4.6.7 All ARIN listed resources are subject to Number resource > policies > > Number policies apply equally to all resources in the ARIN > > registry, including legacy > > allocations made by previous registries which are placed under > > administration of ARIN. > > > > ARIN requires a signed RSA for all resources listed in the ARIN > > number registry, > > and also as a requirement for the privilege of transferring, > > reassigning, or reallocating any number resource.. > > > > ARIN will list legacy allocations and resources not compliant with > > the signed RSA requirement in the ARIN WHOIS directory, > > only on a best-effort basis, and may label such entries as > > Non-Compliant or Non-Validated Resource. > > > > ARIN will accept contact information update requests for > > non-compliant resources that ARIN is able to verify, > > and maintain WHOIS listings for non-compliant resources until such > > time as the registration is > > removed, revoked, or brought into compliance, or ARIN is shown > > proof that listed WHOIS information > > is inaccurate, invalid, not a responsive contact, not the right > > contact, or a new attempt > > by the non-compliant resource holder to transfer, repurpose, or > > delegate any portion of the resource has been attempted, without > > contacting ARIN to request approval. > > > > > > ARIN may remove assignments of non-compliant number resources upon > > finding evidence that the resource is abandoned or unused > > for a period of 3 months or longer, if there is no signed RSA, and > > after reasonable efforts > > to contact a resource holder have been attempted and failed, or > > if contact is made, and a > > resource holder fails to sign the RSA within 30 days. > > As much as I like this, I think that it goes a little too far and creates > an unnecessary legal burden for ARIN. > > If you deleted everything after the last or in the lst sentence, I would > support as written. > > I recommend submitting to policy as a proposal template. Let me know if > you'd like assistance filling out the template. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ [kjk] I have to agree with Owen, this is the first and closest suggestion for legacy resource management that I could support. It does ping on one of my policy pet peeves though. "May" operations in the absence of an under-riding "May Not" are really a no-op. If there is nothing in policy preventing ARIN from doing something then there is no need to write specific policy allowing ARIN to do it. "May" is functional only if it modifies a stricter control, such as a "Will" or "Will not" or "Must" or even "May not". I understand the desire to do future-proofing, but it makes for more tangled policy. This *may* be due to too much Boolean thinking on my part. lol I like your idea, and I also like the idea suggested by Mr. Buhrmaster of requiring agreement escalation on transfers, i.e. no-contract resource transfer would require LRSA at minimum, and LRSA transfer would require RSA. This makes sense to me. I look forward to seeing these as policy proposals. Kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 19 12:43:44 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:43:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Oppose > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of ARIN > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:56 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the > Registry > > ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > > Proposal Originator: David Farmer > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 19 June 2012 > > Proposal type: Modify > > Policy term: Permanent > > Policy statement: > > Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; > > ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN > number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, > including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the > Internet Registry system. > > Rationale: > > There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to legacy > resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all > resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are legacy-issued > resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within North > American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated > in the region. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 13:09:53 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:09:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> Milton - Could you take a moment to explain the concerns that you foresee with the policy change in addition to simply expressing opposition? The reasoning is valued by others on the mailing list in helping them form their own views on benefits and/or concerns with the proposal. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Oppose > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of ARIN >> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:56 AM >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the >> Registry >> >> ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry >> >> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the >> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy >> Development Process. >> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next >> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly >> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended >> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how >> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. >> >> The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, >> particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning >> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough >> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >> >> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html >> >> Mailing list subscription information can be found >> at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ >> >> Regards, >> >> Communications and Member Services >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> ## * ## >> >> >> ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry >> >> Proposal Originator: David Farmer >> >> Proposal Version: 1.0 >> >> Date: 19 June 2012 >> >> Proposal type: Modify >> >> Policy term: Permanent >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; >> >> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN >> number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, >> including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the >> Internet Registry system. >> >> Rationale: >> >> There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to legacy >> resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all >> resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are legacy-issued >> resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within North >> American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated >> in the region. >> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kkargel at polartel.com Tue Jun 19 13:12:22 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:12:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218AE2C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218AE2C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D47D@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:11 AM > To: John Curran; Avri Doria > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM > Section 2 - Legacy Resources > > > So here's the game of chicken I was warning you about. > > John, you are making the startling claim that ARIN (let's not hide behind > fancy terms like "community of global service providers") will de-register > and reassign legacy address blocks if a legacy holder doesn't play ball > with it. But you have no contractual authority over those resources, a > fact which exposes your organization to lawsuits if it acts in such a > manner. [kjk] I support and applaud John's well thought and reasonable responses. While what Milton says is true, there is not contractual authority, there is also no contractual obligation to keep the resources listed in the database or to associate a specific ASN with the resources. > > Worse, the REAL community of service providers may or may not go along > with your attempt to unilaterally and extralegally assert authority over > the resources; some of them might be quite happy to continue routing to > Avri's blocks, or to whoever Avri assigns them to. I don't care what kind > of piffle you put forward in the next messages, the simple fact is that > ARIN does not and cannot speak for all the world's service providers and > thus cannot guarantee that this does not happen. [kjk] I suspect that the community of service providers will go along with ARIN decisions. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 19 13:59:29 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:59:29 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] =?utf-8?q?ARIN-prop-172_Additional_definition_for_NRP?= =?utf-8?q?M=09Section_2_-_Legacy_Resources?= In-Reply-To: <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Hi, Several people have asked questions, some politer than others. Some examples with quick answers - Who am I to have such a selfish attitude. What can I say? A cranky old person who did my first networking code in the late 80's early 90's - though these days does mostly policy cruft. - Where did I get them Postel assigned them to me when I had a small contracting effort. Used them for a number of years until my ISP was acquired and then found the new guys would not route them any longer. - Why dont I use them I would like to. I still have a small consulting effort and would love to be able to use these instead of being forced to do NAT. But NAT works, sort of, so I only get riled up about with I see coercive langauge. This has, incidentally convinced me of the importance of NAT (including for IPv6 where you all have the complete control you are trying to achieve in IPv4). Sooner or later someone is going to say you can't have the addresses you want becasue you did not follow some rule or other to the letter. Better make sure you have NAT when that happens. But I digress. If I could get them routed, I would use them. - Why can't you get them Routed? My ISP won't route them becasue they are not propoerly assinged by ARIN. Or so they say. ARIN is going to take them away unless I sign over to ARIN This seems coercive to me, and I hate it when governments are coercive. I hate it even more when non governments, asserting their own power ,over me are coercive - Why don't I trust ARIN I have been getting coercive sounding email telling me what i MUST do on this subject for many years. I have never been able to get assistance on this, even during the days when I bothered to try. There has never been a consideration of me as a stakeholder who might have something to say on how they treated an assignment I was given before they existed. I beleive in multistakeolder organizations, and I do not think ARIN acts like one. I also find it rather offensive that instead of dealing with the people and organizations that might be disagreeing with ARIN policies, you have decided to define them out of existence by spinning it as just a database issue. For that reason I find ARIN-PROP-172 incredibly offensive and hope it is not approved by the pwoers that be. - Do I really think I can win this Of course not. ARIN is big and strong and I am just one small insignificant voice. But that does not mean I am not going to try. I am just explaining why I have become a foe of an RIR sysytem that seems to be dictatorial and especially of ARIN as the RIR I need to deal with. I am also explaining why, within Internet goverance circles, I would not be able to defend the multistakeholder nature of ARIN and wonder. cheers, From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 14:32:51 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:32:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: > > - Why don't I trust ARIN > > I have been getting coercive sounding email telling me what i MUST do on this subject for many years. > I have never been able to get assistance on this, even during the days when I bothered to try. > > There has never been a consideration of me as a stakeholder who might have something to say on how they treated an assignment I was given before they existed. > John, Would it be possible for us to see the kinds of communications that ARIN sends to legacy holders? Best, -M< From lee at dilkie.com Tue Jun 19 14:18:37 2012 From: lee at dilkie.com (Lee Dilkie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:18:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4FE0C27D.8050502@dilkie.com> On 6/19/2012 1:59 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I also find it rather offensive that instead of dealing with the people and organizations that might be disagreeing with ARIN policies, you have decided to define them out of existence by spinning it as just a database issue. For that reason I find ARIN-PROP-172 incredibly offensive and hope it is not approved by the pwoers that be. As do I. And I, like you, hold a legacy assignment and I also have come to distrust the "community"/ARIN because I see the coercive and vindictive attitude towards us legacy holders on this list all the time. And the database issue.... The only thing I was requested to maintain, by InterNIC, was the information in WHOIS and the RDNS.... I find it despicable that the "public" information that benefits everyone is being used as a stick to force us to "sign zee papers old man!". -lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christoph.blecker at ubc.ca Tue Jun 19 14:51:53 2012 From: christoph.blecker at ubc.ca (Blecker, Christoph) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:51:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> Message-ID: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAB8B05@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> Support the concept. However, would this work better as something in section one, or perhaps as a definition in section two? Additionally, the wording may need to be slightly re-worked a bit to conform to definitions 2.1 and 2.2. There seems to be a lot of discussion around this, and while this doesn't change the way that ARIN has been operating it seems to be an important clarification to make. Cheers, -- Christoph Blecker The University of British Columbia > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of ARIN > Sent: June-19-12 8:56 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the > Registry > > ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > > Proposal Originator: David Farmer > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 19 June 2012 > > Proposal type: Modify > > Policy term: Permanent > > Policy statement: > > Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; > > ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN > number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, > including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the > Internet Registry system. > > Rationale: > > There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to legacy > resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all > resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are legacy-issued > resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within North > American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated > in the region. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 15:55:59 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:55:59 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > - Why can't you get them Routed? > > My ISP won't route them becasue they are not propoerly assinged by ARIN. Or so they say. > ARIN is going to take them away unless I sign over to ARIN Avri - You should be able to get them routed if they are assigned to you; I am unaware of any provider which requires legacy resources be put under any agreement with ARIN before they will route them. Are you sure that we're talking about legacy assignments from the Internet registry and not a provider assignment of space to you? > This seems coercive to me, and I hate it when governments are coercive. > I hate it even more when non governments, asserting their own power ,over me are coercive Agreed, and hence why I'm asking for you to supply some details about it. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 19 16:00:59 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:00:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/19/12, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > > Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; > > ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN > number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, > including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the > Internet Registry system. I'll join the lawsuit if this policy is adopted. Oppose. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 16:01:06 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:01:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > John, > > Would it be possible for us to see the kinds of communications that > ARIN sends to legacy holders? I've asked Avri for the communications that she is referencing, but the ARIN Announce archive has all of the communication that we've sent about availability of the legacy agreement. For example, the October 2007 Legacy RSA announcement is archived here: FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 16:15:02 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:15:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> John, >> >> Would it be possible for us to see the kinds of communications that >> ARIN sends to legacy holders? > > I've asked Avri for the communications that she is referencing, > but the ARIN Announce archive has all of the communication that > we've sent about availability of the legacy agreement. ?For > example, the October 2007 Legacy RSA announcement is archived > here: > John, Has ARIN sent legacy holders communications directly targeted at them and not via a specific ARIN mailing list? Best, -M< From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 16:20:10 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:20:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: <79CEF8E0-CA92-469F-8596-AE5CD16378D9@arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > John, > > Has ARIN sent legacy holders communications directly targeted at them > and not via a specific ARIN mailing list? I do not know offhand, but will find out and collect any such communications for review. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 19 16:39:51 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:39:51 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] =?utf-8?q?ARIN-prop-172_Additional_definition_for_NRP?= =?utf-8?q?M=09Section_2_-_Legacy_Resources?= In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: <3a2e3c43-d533-4286-aa10-a0feccf9cd9c@email.android.com> Absolutely postive about the assignment, where it came from and about what my ISP told me. I even updated my whois record when I was told to, since I alwasy do what I am supposed to do about whois. BTW, speaking of whois, do you guys allow whois proxy? Thank you, avri John Curran wrote: >On Jun 19, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> - Why can't you get them Routed? >> >> My ISP won't route them becasue they are not propoerly assinged by >ARIN. Or so they say. >> ARIN is going to take them away unless I sign over to ARIN > >Avri - > >You should be able to get them routed if they are assigned to you; >I am unaware of any provider which requires legacy resources be put >under any agreement with ARIN before they will route them. Are you >sure that we're talking about legacy assignments from the Internet >registry and not a provider assignment of space to you? > >> This seems coercive to me, and I hate it when governments are >coercive. >> I hate it even more when non governments, asserting their own power >,over me are coercive > >Agreed, and hence why I'm asking for you to supply >some details about it. > >Thanks, >/John > >John Curran >President and CEO >ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jun 19 16:40:24 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:40:24 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> On 6/19/12 15:00 CDT, William Herrin wrote: > On 6/19/12, ARIN wrote: >> ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry >> >> Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; >> >> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN >> number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, >> including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the >> Internet Registry system. > > I'll join the lawsuit if this policy is adopted. Oppose. Is the concept completely an non-starter and unreasonable? Are there policies missing that you think are necessary before this is reasonable? Are there policies that you think shouldn't apply to Legacy Resources? Do you believe there are any policy that should apply to Legacy Resources? -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From cgrundemann at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 16:50:37 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:50:37 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <3a2e3c43-d533-4286-aa10-a0feccf9cd9c@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> <3a2e3c43-d533-4286-aa10-a0feccf9cd9c@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Absolutely postive about the assignment, > where it came from and about what my ISP told me. You're talking about 198.175.150.0/24? > I even updated my whois record when I was told to, > since I alwasy do what I am supposed to do about whois. > > BTW, speaking of whois, > do you guys allow whois proxy? > > Thank you, > > avri > > > John Curran wrote: > >>On Jun 19, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> - Why can't you get them Routed? >>> >>> My ISP won't route them becasue they are not propoerly assinged by >>ARIN. Or so they say. >>> ARIN is going to take them away unless I sign over to ARIN >> >>Avri - >> >>You should be able to get them routed if they are assigned to you; >>I am unaware of any provider which requires legacy resources be put >>under any agreement with ARIN before they will route them. ?Are you >>sure that we're talking about legacy assignments from the Internet >>registry and not a provider assignment of space to you? >> >>> This seems coercive to me, and I hate it when governments are >>coercive. >>> I hate it even more when non governments, asserting their own power >>,over me are coercive >> >>Agreed, and hence why I'm asking for you to supply >>some details about it. >> >>Thanks, >>/John >> >>John Curran >>President and CEO >>ARIN > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 19 16:50:55 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:50:55 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: <79d48e87-5c9c-42a4-9cd0-b345c9e05e56@email.android.com> Hi, I am afraid I have not kept the communications as I never expected to make an issue of it. I have usually deleted them thinking why are these people bothering me again as I don't do business with them. Just wishing to use my addresses, but content that at least I had NAT. It was seeing 172, and finding myself with visceral anger, that I decided to say something. I certainly don't want to use the ppml as a customer service vehicle. The policy proposal is bad. Yes there is my personal story, and the little class c and the fact that I would like to be able to use it, it is rather unimportant in the scope of things - where half of the Ipv4 address are currnetly unused becasue there is no legitimate way to bring them into use. What matters is that this proposed policy attempts to wipe an entire class of address holders out of existence by redefining them as a DB artifact. And since most of the unused IPv4 addresses are probably held in the ARIN region, that would be a giganic wrong. avri John Curran wrote: >On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> John, >> >> Would it be possible for us to see the kinds of communications that >> ARIN sends to legacy holders? > >I've asked Avri for the communications that she is referencing, >but the ARIN Announce archive has all of the communication that >we've sent about availability of the legacy agreement. For >example, the October 2007 Legacy RSA announcement is archived >here: > > >FYI, >/John > >John Curran >President and CEO >ARIN > > > >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 16:51:07 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:51:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> Message-ID: <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 4:40 PM, David Farmer wrote: > On 6/19/12 15:00 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >>> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN >>> number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, >>> including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the >>> Internet Registry system. >> >> I'll join the lawsuit if this policy is adopted. Oppose. > > Is the concept completely an non-starter and unreasonable? Note - ARIN already applies number resource policies "to all resources in the ARIN registry, including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the Internet Registry system." We have offered lower fees for legacy resource holders, and have provided them with an explicit waiver of reclamation due to lack of use (both of these are in the present LRSA agreement) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 16:58:58 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:58:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <79d48e87-5c9c-42a4-9cd0-b345c9e05e56@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> <79d48e87-5c9c-42a4-9cd0-b345c9e05e56@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4AA3056C-8F4F-41C7-A26C-2E247EB69EC5@arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > The policy proposal is bad. Yes there is my personal story, and the little class c and the fact that I would like to be able to use it, it is rather unimportant in the scope of things - where half of the Ipv4 address are currnetly unused becasue there is no legitimate way to bring them into use. To be clear, we've had lots of people bring them into use, and transfers seem to be increasing. Could you be more specific about "no legitimate way" to bring them into use?" > What matters is that this proposed policy attempts to wipe an entire class of address holders out of existence by redefining them as a DB artifact. Please explain. The policy simply states that the number resource policies apply to all resources in the registry, which is present practice. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 19 17:01:51 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:01:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Could you take a moment to explain the concerns that you > foresee with the policy change in addition to simply > expressing opposition? The reasoning is valued by others Sure, why not. Given that ARIN has no contract with legacy holders, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that ARIN's authority over them is limited. If ARIN's authority is under question, you do not create legitimate authority simply by asserting it. Yet this proposed policy makes a unilateral and arbitrary assertion of authority over resources held by people over which ARIN has no contractual or other legal authority. You may as well assert that ARIN has authority over my house, ISP routing policies, website content, whatever. Moreover, it is a policy that seeks to resolve a major conflict among stakeholders by one side seeking complete dominance over another, rather than by seeking mutual agreement and benefit. I am really surprised that such a thing came from David Farmer, who seemed to be a nice and reasonable person the last time I talked to him. I would appeal to him to withdraw it, as no useful or enlightening exchanges will ensue from discussing it. The proposed policy would be laughable if it were not so akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Whatever your opinion on the status of legacy resources, this is not the way to resolve the conflicts around those issues. We all know that there is an issue here and we all know, or should know, that it cannot be resolved by one party simply asserting that they are the "king of the world" --MM > >> ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > >> > >> Proposal Originator: David Farmer > >> > >> Proposal Version: 1.0 > >> > >> Date: 19 June 2012 > >> > >> Proposal type: Modify > >> > >> Policy term: Permanent > >> > >> Policy statement: > >> > >> Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; > >> > >> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN > >> number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, > >> including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the > >> Internet Registry system. > >> > >> Rationale: > >> > >> There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to legacy > >> resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all > >> resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are legacy-issued > >> resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within North > >> American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated > >> in the region. > >> > >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 19 17:07:42 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:07:42 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1dc445f2-9ce4-4a08-9988-36ff84c17279@email.android.com> +1 avri Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> Could you take a moment to explain the concerns that you >> foresee with the policy change in addition to simply >> expressing opposition? The reasoning is valued by others > >Sure, why not. >Given that ARIN has no contract with legacy holders, it is perfectly >reasonable to conclude that ARIN's authority over them is limited. >If ARIN's authority is under question, you do not create legitimate >authority simply by asserting it. Yet this proposed policy makes a >unilateral and arbitrary assertion of authority over resources held by >people over which ARIN has no contractual or other legal authority. You >may as well assert that ARIN has authority over my house, ISP routing >policies, website content, whatever. > >Moreover, it is a policy that seeks to resolve a major conflict among >stakeholders by one side seeking complete dominance over another, >rather than by seeking mutual agreement and benefit. I am really >surprised that such a thing came from David Farmer, who seemed to be a >nice and reasonable person the last time I talked to him. I would >appeal to him to withdraw it, as no useful or enlightening exchanges >will ensue from discussing it. > >The proposed policy would be laughable if it were not so akin to >shouting fire in a crowded theater. Whatever your opinion on the status >of legacy resources, this is not the way to resolve the conflicts >around those issues. We all know that there is an issue here and we all >know, or should know, that it cannot be resolved by one party simply >asserting that they are the "king of the world" > >--MM > >> >> ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry >> >> >> >> Proposal Originator: David Farmer >> >> >> >> Proposal Version: 1.0 >> >> >> >> Date: 19 June 2012 >> >> >> >> Proposal type: Modify >> >> >> >> Policy term: Permanent >> >> >> >> Policy statement: >> >> >> >> Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; >> >> >> >> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and >ARIN >> >> number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN >registry, >> >> including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in >the >> >> Internet Registry system. >> >> >> >> Rationale: >> >> >> >> There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to >legacy >> >> resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all >> >> resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are >legacy-issued >> >> resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within >North >> >> American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and >allocated >> >> in the region. >> >> >> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate > >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 17:10:37 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:10:37 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Given that ARIN has no contract with legacy holders, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that ARIN's authority over them is limited. > If ARIN's authority is under question, you do not create legitimate authority simply by asserting it. Yet this proposed policy makes a unilateral and arbitrary assertion of authority over resources held by people over which ARIN has no contractual or other legal authority. You may as well assert that ARIN has authority over my house, ISP routing policies, website content, whatever. The counterpoint being the legacy address holders have no contract with ARIN, and therefore no authority over the registry entries. ARIN was formed specifically for the purpose of providing a voice to address holders in policy formation for the management of IP addresses in the region. So, address holders don't get a "policy-free-zone" for their IP registrations, but instead a forum and process for developing the policies that apply. Legacy holders who simply wish to use their resources can just continue to do so, and can optionally enter in the LRSA if they want contractual assurances of same. However, if you really do want to do something different with your resources (like transfer them to another party) then you need to get involved in the policy development process. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov Tue Jun 19 17:12:07 2012 From: Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov (Morizot Timothy S) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:12:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> > John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 4:40 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > On 6/19/12 15:00 CDT, William Herrin wrote: > >>> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service > >>> region and ARIN > >>> number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN > >>> registry, including those resources issued from a predecessor > >>> registry in the Internet Registry system. > >> > >> I'll join the lawsuit if this policy is adopted. Oppose. > > > > Is the concept completely an non-starter and unreasonable? > > We have offered lower fees for legacy resource holders, and > have provided them with an explicit waiver of reclamation due > to lack of use (both of these are in the present LRSA agreement) It's likely the governmental and educational legacy users have a different perspective, but I don't personally understand what's objectionable in the LRSA. We didn't find anything in it objectionable and signed it primarily to make the waiver John mentions explicit rather than implicit. And before anything gets signed here, a lot of people in procurement and other areas, often including legal assessment, have to review it to make sure we are not obligating the agency to anything we shouldn't be. Scott From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 17:17:08 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:17:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Given that ARIN has no contract with legacy holders, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that ARIN's authority over them is limited. > If ARIN's authority is under question, you do not create legitimate authority simply by asserting it. Yet this proposed policy makes a unilateral and arbitrary assertion of authority over resources held by people over which ARIN has no contractual or other legal authority. You may as well assert that ARIN has authority over my house, ISP routing policies, website content, whatever. The counterpoint being the legacy address holders have no contract with ARIN, and therefore no authority over the registry entries. ARIN was formed specifically for the purpose of providing a voice to address holders in policy formation for the management of IP addresses in the region. So, address holders don't get a "policy-free-zone" for their IP registrations, but instead a forum and process for developing the policies that apply. Legacy holders who simply wish to use their resources can just continue to do so, and can optionally enter in the LRSA if they want contractual assurances of same. However, if you really do want to do something different with your resources (like transfer them to another party) then you need to get involved in the policy development process. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 19 17:18:56 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:18:56 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> Message-ID: On 6/19/12, David Farmer wrote: > On 6/19/12 15:00 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >> On 6/19/12, ARIN wrote: >>> ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry >>> >>> Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; >>> >>> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN >>> number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, >>> including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the >>> Internet Registry system. >> >> I'll join the lawsuit if this policy is adopted. Oppose. > > Is the concept completely an non-starter and unreasonable? Yes. > Are there > policies missing that you think are necessary before this is reasonable? No. In my opinion, ARIN lacks legal standing to make involuntary changes to an in-use legacy registration. Period. It's not even about whether it would be reasonable for ARIN to have such standing. Policy be damned, they do not have it. > Are there policies that you think shouldn't apply to Legacy Resources? > Do you believe there are any policy that should apply to Legacy > Resources? I have been satisfied with ARIN's practice of only recording transfers of addresses if the new registration falls under then-current ARIN policy and contracts. Given the way the court has ruled in the past half decade, I'm not convinced ARIN actually has the right to refuse to record a change. To my knowledge no judge has ever reached a declaration that they do while several have reached declarations that more or less state that they do not. Nevertheless, it would not upset me to discover that ARIN does have that right. At any rate, any proponents of this policy should understand that they're picking a fight. The policy directs ARIN to engage in a lawsuit which definitively settles the question in court. And frankly it pushes ARIN to engage at the registrants' convenience rather than letting ARIN wait to pick a favorable case. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 19 17:29:14 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:29:14 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> Message-ID: <4d592b98-8236-4132-a24c-c124b1eab662@email.android.com> Hi, Isn't there a difference between geting invovled in the process and needing to sign a contract and paying for the priviledge? And why should I have to pay if I wanted to give my C away to a charity? And why should they pay to register it? If the RIRs are a steward for the resources and they think it is important for everything to be registered, why make it harder? avri John Curran wrote: >On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Given that ARIN has no contract with legacy holders, it is perfectly >reasonable to conclude that ARIN's authority over them is limited. >> If ARIN's authority is under question, you do not create legitimate >authority simply by asserting it. Yet this proposed policy makes a >unilateral and arbitrary assertion of authority over resources held by >people over which ARIN has no contractual or other legal authority. You >may as well assert that ARIN has authority over my house, ISP routing >policies, website content, whatever. > >The counterpoint being the legacy address holders have no contract >with ARIN, and therefore no authority over the registry entries. > >ARIN was formed specifically for the purpose of providing a voice >to address holders in policy formation for the management of IP >addresses in the region. > >So, address holders don't get a "policy-free-zone" for their IP >registrations, but instead a forum and process for developing the >policies that apply. > >Legacy holders who simply wish to use their resources can just >continue to do so, and can optionally enter in the LRSA if they >want contractual assurances of same. However, if you really do >want to do something different with your resources (like transfer >them to another party) then you need to get involved in the policy >development process. > >FYI, >/John > >John Curran >President and CEO >ARIN > >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 17:36:23 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:36:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> Message-ID: <1CB36D5C-B047-4AB9-A1FA-9D065D03FCFD@corp.arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> Are there >> policies missing that you think are necessary before this is reasonable? > > No. In my opinion, ARIN lacks legal standing to make involuntary > changes to an in-use legacy registration. Bill - Are you saying that you believe ARIN lacks authority to make any policy which affects legacy registrants, unless compliance is completely voluntary? You realize that the USG decided that it would best that the community be able to develop policies for the allocation and management of the address space in the region and that led to the formation of ARIN specifically for that purpose? Including the transfer of the existing registry database and staff to the new organization? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 17:43:10 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:43:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4d592b98-8236-4132-a24c-c124b1eab662@email.android.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <4d592b98-8236-4132-a24c-c124b1eab662@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Isn't there a difference between geting invovled in the process and needing to sign a contract and paying for the priviledge? Avri - you do not need to sign anything to participate in the policy development process. You are, in fact, participating right now. > And why should I have to pay if I wanted to give my C away to a charity? And why should they pay to register it? If the RIRs are a steward for the resources and they think it is important for everything to be registered, why make it harder? There is a nominal set of fees to cover the costs of making sure that you are indeed the same Avri Doria as the one on the resource and that the recipient organization is qualified to receive per policy. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 18:19:34 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:19:34 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> Message-ID: <3E9C1278-DDC0-43B3-94D4-3142ACF6757E@corp.arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Morizot Timothy S wrote: > It's likely the governmental and educational legacy users have a different perspective, but I don't personally understand what's objectionable in the LRSA. We didn't find anything in it objectionable and signed it primarily to make the waiver John mentions explicit rather than implicit. And before anything gets signed here, a lot of people in procurement and other areas, often including legal assessment, have to review it to make sure we are not obligating the agency to anything we shouldn't be. I'm glad that you found the LRSA to be useful and contain the rights that you expected; it's been quite a bit of time and effort to get it right. If your perspective was that the number resources should not be subject to any policy, i.e. that they are entirely a form of personal property to do as you please, then you might have a different perspective on the usefulness of the LRSA. As it turns out, how the number resources are used can have real implications for service providers, including in areas such as network operations and routing, so they are instead resources which are subject to community-based policies set via an open and transparent participation process. There is nothing wrong with policy that favors one particular type of resource holder (if the community feels that is the right outcome) and that includes creation favorable policies for those with legacy resources if so desired. ARIN staff will implement such policies if/when they are developed and adopted. The area of fundamental disagreement is whether legacy holders operate in a policy free zone (and that inherently is a matter that can not be truly resolved by the development of number resource policy which states such; the only dispositive path is the legal route.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Tue Jun 19 18:24:09 2012 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:24:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> (Avri Doria's message of "Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:59:29 +0200") References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: <86hau79bzq.fsf@seastrom.com> Avri Doria writes: > - Who am I to have such a selfish attitude. > > What can I say? > A cranky old person who did my first networking code in the late 80's early 90's - though these days does mostly policy cruft. How fascinating that we have a common background and yet have such different experiences. I, too, have number resources assigned to me (in my own name) that predate ARIN's formation. They are under LRSA. The IPv4 prefixes are also routed in the DFZ. http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/RES-Z > - Where did I get them > > Postel assigned them to me when I had a small contracting effort. Used them for a number of years until my ISP was acquired and then found the new guys would not route them any longer. I have to confess that as an upstream ISP I would be reluctant to adjust my filters based on the whois entry for 198.175.150.0/24. It smells abandoned and camped out on (no admin contact, tech contact for the org is unknown, and only an abuse contact listed). The truth may be different, but we're talking appearances here. The solution of course is to clean up the whois entries. > - Why dont I use them > > I would like to. I still have a small consulting effort and would > love to be able to use these instead of being forced to do NAT. But > NAT works, sort of, so I only get riled up about with I see coercive > langauge. This has, incidentally convinced me of the importance of > NAT (including for IPv6 where you all have the complete control you > are trying to achieve in IPv4). Sooner or later someone is going to > say you can't have the addresses you want becasue you did not follow > some rule or other to the letter. Better make sure you have NAT > when that happens. But I digress. If I could get them routed, I > would use them. Assuming this has been you personally all along, or Technicalities is a (dba|llc|lp|corp|whatever) that's still in business and you control, the ARIN registration services folks have a history of being very reasonable about sorting out database stuff. Depending on the details, you may have to bring things under LRSA in order to consummate the deal. As near as I can tell, your "you can't have the addresses you want becasue you did not follow some rule to the letter" concern is utterly without historical factual basis. Sure, people get turned down for new allocations and assignments all the time for lack of documented need, but that's not what we're talking about here. If there's some kind of fraud or misappropriation involved (company's out of biz but you hung onto the addresses, etc) then all bets are off, but if there *were* fraud involved I'm sure you'd be far too smart to bring attention to yourself by posting your gripes to PPML, so that angle really doesn't bear much further discussion. But ARIN really does bend over backwards to try to fix this sort of situation. ARIN staff has a mandate from the Community to take a very active role, on multiple fronts, to make whois more accurate. I have observed firsthand as ARIN staff has gone above and beyond to untangle registrations where people have "put stuff in the blanks because the blanks were there" and similar such errors. > - Why can't you get them Routed? > > My ISP won't route them becasue they are not propoerly assinged by ARIN. Or so they say. > ARIN is going to take them away unless I sign over to ARIN. You have an opportunity to codify your rights rather than speculating upon them, and as a nice little side effect regain the ability to route the space (getting your home or business broadband provider to actually announce your netblock is a separate issue). Sounds like a no-brainer. > This seems coercive to me, and I hate it when governments are coercive. > I hate it even more when non governments, asserting their own power ,over me are coercive I hate that I have to renew my license plates and otherwise keep official records up to date lest I run afoul of some procedural issue and not be able to do what I want, too. Sometimes you've gotta engage on society's playing field. It's called Social Contract. Ever read Rousseau or Locke? > - Why don't I trust ARIN > > I have been getting coercive sounding email telling me what i MUST do on this subject for many years. > I have never been able to get assistance on this, even during the days when I bothered to try. Do you have ticket numbers from the help desk from the times you bothered to try? I'm sure it would be informative to see where things went wrong. I'm sorry that you perceived the email that said you MUST do certain subjects to be coercive, but obviously there's a grain of truth to the imperative, for to fail to reply results in situations like: OrgTechHandle: CKN23-ARIN OrgTechName: No, Contact Known OrgTechPhone: +1-800-555-1234 OrgTechEmail: nobody at example.com OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/CKN23-ARIN > There has never been a consideration of me as a stakeholder who > might have something to say on how they treated an assignment I was > given before they existed. As a member of the same class of stakeholders as you (legacy number resource holder, been in the business approaching a quarter century), and having been involved intimately in ARIN's policy process as a member of the ARIN Advisory Council for over 8 years, I have to say that your perception is incorrect. > I beleive in multistakeolder organizations, and I do not think ARIN acts like one. > > I also find it rather offensive that instead of dealing with the > people and organizations that might be disagreeing with ARIN > policies, you have decided to define them out of existence by > spinning it as just a database issue. For that reason I find > ARIN-PROP-172 incredibly offensive and hope it is not approved by > the pwoers that be. I'm still forming my opinion on 172. Bluster is a poor argument tactic. > - Do I really think I can win this > > Of course not. ARIN is big and strong and I am just one small insignificant voice. > But that does not mean I am not going to try. > > I am just explaining why I have become a foe of an RIR sysytem that > seems to be dictatorial and especially of ARIN as the RIR I need to > deal with. I am also explaining why, within Internet goverance > circles, I would not be able to defend the multistakeholder nature > of ARIN and wonder. My grandfather used to say that if you don't vote you don't get to complain (a common sentiment; clearly he wasn't the first to say it). I'm *just* self-regarding enough to think that my work for the past several years might have had some kind of salutary effect on the policies we've worked on. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/freewill.html -r From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 19 19:09:00 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:09:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <1CB36D5C-B047-4AB9-A1FA-9D065D03FCFD@corp.arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <1CB36D5C-B047-4AB9-A1FA-9D065D03FCFD@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:36 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> In my opinion, ARIN lacks legal standing to make involuntary >> changes to an in-use legacy registration. > > ?Are you saying that you believe ARIN lacks authority to make > ?any policy which affects legacy registrants, unless compliance > ?is completely voluntary? Hi John, Devil in the details but that's the gist of it, yes. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From mysidia at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 20:59:13 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:59:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> Message-ID: On 6/19/12, Avri Doria wrote: > As one of those legacy holders, I do not see what authority ARIN has with > regards to those resources at all. I recognize neither your authority to > force me to sign an agreement, not to expropriate those addresses assigned > to me by those who came before you. And whether I am using them at a moment As one of those members of the ARIN community, I do not see what authority as a Legacy Holder you have over any resources at all, except if they are listed in the Internet Number registry, in accordance with ARIN policies, or listed in another Global registry, in accordance with global policies, and the policies for the RIR shown as responsible for the block. -- -JH From lee at dilkie.com Tue Jun 19 21:08:57 2012 From: lee at dilkie.com (Lee Dilkie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:08:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> On 6/19/2012 8:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 6/19/12, Avri Doria wrote: >> As one of those legacy holders, I do not see what authority ARIN has with >> regards to those resources at all. I recognize neither your authority to >> force me to sign an agreement, not to expropriate those addresses assigned >> to me by those who came before you. And whether I am using them at a moment > As one of those members of the ARIN community, I do not see what > authority as a Legacy Holder you have over any resources at all, > except if they are listed in the Internet Number registry, in > accordance with ARIN policies, or listed in another Global registry, > in accordance with global policies, and the policies for the RIR shown > as responsible for the block. > > -- > -JH And so it begins.... Can I ask you a question.... If the ARIN community decided that comcast should no longer own any IP numbers, and voted for that... Can ARIN go ahead and reclaim all of comcast's netblocks? ARIN does have that authority, does it not? -lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 21:18:59 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:18:59 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> Message-ID: <4E1C7099-0E2E-4BBE-824B-CAECFE117891@corp.arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: > > Can I ask you a question.... If the ARIN community decided that comcast should no longer own any IP numbers, and voted for that... Can ARIN go ahead and reclaim all of comcast's netblocks? ARIN does have that authority, does it not? Lee - That actually would not be a valid policy, as fails the requirements for fair and impartial management as specified in the Policy Development Process. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From lee at dilkie.com Tue Jun 19 21:55:47 2012 From: lee at dilkie.com (Lee Dilkie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:55:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4E1C7099-0E2E-4BBE-824B-CAECFE117891@corp.arin.net> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> <4E1C7099-0E2E-4BBE-824B-CAECFE117891@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4FE12DA3.7090305@dilkie.com> On 6/19/2012 9:18 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: > >> Can I ask you a question.... If the ARIN community decided that comcast should no longer own any IP numbers, and voted for that... Can ARIN go ahead and reclaim all of comcast's netblocks? ARIN does have that authority, does it not? > Lee - > > That actually would not be a valid policy, as fails the requirements for fair and impartial management as specified in the Policy Development Process. > > FYI, > /John Yes John... it's a nasty thing to do... but that isn't what I asked... *could* ARIN decide, on a vote by members, to revoke an assignment for comcast (for instance). Does ARIN have that authority? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lee at dilkie.com Tue Jun 19 20:49:26 2012 From: lee at dilkie.com (Lee Dilkie) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:49:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> John, This proposal simply makes the bold claim that legacy address holders are now completely subject to ARIN policy. You don't have that right, it was not assigned to you when ARIN was created. ARIN was given the responsibility of maintaining the existing records, but this goes beyond that. On 6/19/2012 5:17 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Given that ARIN has no contract with legacy holders, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that ARIN's authority over them is limited. >> If ARIN's authority is under question, you do not create legitimate authority simply by asserting it. Yet this proposed policy makes a unilateral and arbitrary assertion of authority over resources held by people over which ARIN has no contractual or other legal authority. You may as well assert that ARIN has authority over my house, ISP routing policies, website content, whatever. > The counterpoint being the legacy address holders have no contract > with ARIN, and therefore no authority over the registry entries. > > ARIN was formed specifically for the purpose of providing a voice > to address holders in policy formation for the management of IP > addresses in the region. > > So, address holders don't get a "policy-free-zone" for their IP > registrations, but instead a forum and process for developing the > policies that apply. > > Legacy holders who simply wish to use their resources can just > continue to do so, and can optionally enter in the LRSA if they > want contractual assurances of same. However, if you really do > want to do something different with your resources (like transfer > them to another party) then you need to get involved in the policy > development process. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mysidia at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 22:14:55 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:14:55 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FE12DA3.7090305@dilkie.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> <4E1C7099-0E2E-4BBE-824B-CAECFE117891@corp.arin.net> <4FE12DA3.7090305@dilkie.com> Message-ID: On 6/19/12, Lee Dilkie wrote: > Yes John... it's a nasty thing to do... but that isn't what I asked... > *could* ARIN decide, on a vote by members, to revoke an assignment for > comcast (for instance). ARIN members cannot vote to revoke a specific assignment, legacy or not. The proposition that ARIN members could decide to "Revoke Comcast's assignment" is disingenuous at best. ARIN members could propose a policy that provides for the revokation of any kind of assignment or allocation (including legacy ones) under circumstances that would be spelled out in the policy. For example: "If ARIN staff discover that an assignment was obtained through a fraudulent application, or was fraudulently transferred, ARIN may revoke the assignment." -- -JH From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 22:15:40 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:15:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FE12DA3.7090305@dilkie.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> <4E1C7099-0E2E-4BBE-824B-CAECFE117891@corp.arin.net> <4FE12DA3.7090305@dilkie.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: > > On 6/19/2012 9:18 PM, John Curran wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: > > Can I ask you a question.... If the ARIN community decided that comcast > should no longer own any IP numbers, and voted for that... Can ARIN go ahead > and reclaim all of comcast's netblocks? ARIN does have that authority, does > it not? > > Lee - > > That actually would not be a valid policy, as fails the requirements for > fair and impartial management as specified in the Policy Development > Process. > > FYI, > /John > > > Yes John... it's a nasty thing to do... but that isn't what I asked... > *could* ARIN decide, on a vote by members, to revoke an assignment for > comcast (for instance). IIUC, ARIN "members" do not vote on policy. It is members of the ARIN community that decide on policy using consensus (although we use a 'vote' of sorts as an indicator of support for or against a policy proposal). ARIN "Members" (those who pay fees for subscription or membership fees) are eligible to vote in various electoral processes: https://www.arin.net/participate/membership/overview.html "MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS ARIN provides the following membership benefits designed to encourage participation. ARIN Members may: Vote in ARIN Elections - each ARIN Member is entitled to vote through its Designated Member Representative (DMR). Nominate individuals to the Board of Trustees and Advisory Council. Attend ARIN's biannual Public Policy and Members Meetings with no registration fees for up to two representatives. Participate in the ARIN Discuss Mailing List. Take advantage of future membership benefits offered." > > Does ARIN have that authority? According to the above, the answer seems to be "no". -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 19 22:18:30 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:18:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4E1C7099-0E2E-4BBE-824B-CAECFE117891@corp.arin.net> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> <4E1C7099-0E2E-4BBE-824B-CAECFE117891@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:18 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: >> Can I ask you a question.... If the ARIN community decided >> that comcast should no longer own any IP numbers, and >> voted for that... Can ARIN go ahead and reclaim all of >> comcast's netblocks? ARIN does have that authority, does it not? > > That actually would not be a valid policy, as fails the > requirements for fair and impartial management as > specified in the Policy Development Process. Hi John, The PDP? Really? That's their protection? The same board of seven trustees that adopts and rejects policy by a simple majority vote also sets the PDP by a simple majority vote. If policy to reclaim a multi-billion dollar company's IPs could make it past them, so could changes to the PDP. No doubt Comast is relieved that their fate only depends on retaining the good will of 5 of the board's 7 enlightened members with no other legal recourse should things go bad. 5 instead of 4 because I assume a quorum is 5 of 7 so a majority of 3 of 5 with dirty-trick timing can do pretty much what they want. Nevertheless we can rest easy because nothing like the behavior during the recent University of Virginia Board of Visitors scandal could possibly arise at ARIN. We have extensive checks and balances built into the bylaws to obstruct such malfeasance. Extensive checks and balances. Extensive. And ARIN members (not the rest of us) will surely only ever pick good, enlightened people anyway. They're not fools to ever pick a Richard Nixon or two. Now and forever. Right? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From springer at inlandnet.com Tue Jun 19 22:23:08 2012 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> Hi Marc, On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > John, > > The core syllogism you constructed below is impressive (and witty). I do have some observations about your premises. > Thanks for the kind words. > > I'm pretty sure there are valid contracts (verbal and otherwise) for which > there is no document. When I got my IANAL certificate, I thought I knew > that a valid contract required only an exchange of consideration and > assent by both parties. > > << M Lindsey >> If by "valid", you mean enforceable, you're missing some necessary steps to support this assertion. The party trying to enforce an "informal" oral agreement has to prove the existence of the agreement and the parties' assent to the term or condition at issue. Both of these are very difficult hurdles to overcome. To me, it is actually much simpler than that. There is a vast difference between the contract may not be enforceable and there never was a contract. We have a number of folks here loudly and repeatedly asserting the latter. I have no particular dispute with the former and respectfully disagree with the latter. > I do understand that there has been considerable assertion that there is > no contract with "legacy" address resource holders, but has this been > stipulated or in some other way achieved reality? > > << M Lindsey >> As mentioned above, you've placed the burden on the wrong party. Those asserting the existence of an undocumented informal/oral agreement bear the burden to prove the existence of the agreement, and establish its terms and conditions. At the moment of exchange of consideration a contract existed. The terms of the agreement may be lost and may very well be unenforceable, but those observations are orthogonal to the existance of the original agreement. > The exchange of consideration that I have always imputed is: I will give > you these numbers -> I will go build the Intertubez. And how could there > not be assent? If that _IS_ the bargain, I think the pioneers get a > permanent let pass on unwanted changes to the status quo. > > << M Lindsey >> I suspect that I'm not catching all of the nuisance I do hope autocomplete has struck again and you meant nuance, although I strongly suspect you could find some in agreement with the original sentiment. :) >in your statement above, but you appear to be removing an important fact. Individuals and companies serving as US contractors -- while acting on the USG's behalf -- gave out the legacy IP numbers to end users and network operators. How about this then? Individuals and companies serving as US contractors -- while acting on the USG's behalf -- gave out the legacy IP numbers to end users and network operators in return for those parties putting them into use and other valuable considerations the exact nature of which may now be lost and unenforceable but which certainly existed once. > If, on the other hand, there was, in fact, no valid exchange of > consideration or mutual assent, do these folks have any enduring rights > of use at all? In particular, I think they or their agents don't get to > expand their original bargain to preserve a potential windfall. Invisible > hand be damned. > > << M Lindsey >> If there was no original contract between any given legacy holder and the person/entity serving the role of Internet registrar at the time, then there is no original bargain between these parties to expand or contract. This, however, does not mean that the legacy holder lacks any rights in its numbers. It simply means that we must look somewhere else to define the scope of those rights. Indeed. That search is not likely to be assisted overmuch by repeatedly denying that a contract actually once existed. Look, it is not like a bunch of ARIN meanies are swooping down on pore ole cranky, but loveable legacy grandmas lookin ta steal the ranch. Most of this ongoing kerfluffle is the result of a small (but growing) number of motivated players trying to manufacture a windfall. Nothing wrong with that per se, but in this case, the ARIN community needs to agree to it and so far they haven't seemed to. In my case, I have found the "remove needs" proponents to be overly reliant on blank assertion and insufficiently persuasive. > Note well: I am not suggesting an assault on the status of legacy numbers > or their holders, but if proposers be proposing changes to policy toward > these folks, perhaps the solidification of first principles may be in > order. > > << M Lindsey >> I'm gathering that this sentiment is at the core of much of the opposition to proposals 171-173. I'd like to express an alternative sentiment in the form of a question. Can/should transfer policies be designed to further important policy goals and effectively (and practically) address the challenges facing the ARIN community without inviting disputes on first principles between ARIN and off-contract legacy resource holders? Ha! Very nice. Maybe so. You move me toward optimism. John Springer > I don't think I gave any advice here. > > << M Lindsey >> Nice! > > Marc Lindsey > Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP > 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 > Washington, DC 20036 > Phone: (202) 857-2564 > Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com > From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 19 22:41:37 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:41:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > I'm pretty sure there are valid contracts (verbal and otherwise) for which > there is no document. When I got my IANAL certificate, I thought I knew > that a valid contract required only an exchange of consideration and > assent by both parties. Hi Marc, IANAL, but IIRC from the contract law class I took back in college, it requires an exchange of consideration and a "meeting of the minds." If you can show that both parties understood themselves to be agreeing to the same thing, you have a contract, even on a handshake. On the other hand, if you can show that the parties reasonably had a significantly different understanding of what they were agreeing to at the time they agreed to it, or that they weren't indicating agreement on anything at all then no contract formed. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM, John Springer wrote: > There is a vast difference > between the contract may not be enforceable and there never was a contract. > We have a number of folks here loudly and repeatedly asserting the latter. I > have no particular dispute with the former and respectfully disagree with > the latter. Hi John, Can you identify the exchange of consideration involved during a legacy registration? Can you identify the terms on which the minds met? I'll be happy to share the documentation from my registration back in the early '90s if you need an example to review. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 22:59:24 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 02:59:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> Message-ID: <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: You don't have that right, it was not assigned to you when ARIN was created. ARIN was given the responsibility of maintaining the existing records, but this goes beyond that. Lee - ARIN was created to give the users of IP numbers (e.g. ISPs) within the North American region a voice in the policies by which they are _managed_ and allocated There is no way to provide a voice in policies to those in the region without potential for that the actual policies for management of resources in the region to be changed as a result. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 19 23:11:48 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:11:48 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: > >> You don't have that right, it was not assigned to you when ARIN was created. >> ARIN was given the responsibility of maintaining the existing records, but >> this goes beyond that. > > > ? ?ARIN was created to?give the users of IP numbers (e.g. ISPs)?within the > ? ?North American region?a voice?in the?policies by which they are > _managed_ > ? ?and allocated? ?There is no way to provide a voice in?policies to those > ? ?in the region without potential for that the actual policies?for > management > ? ?of?resources?in the region to be changed as a result. New registrations John. *New* registrations. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From springer at inlandnet.com Tue Jun 19 23:15:05 2012 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <20120619195501.H42665@mail.inlandnet.com> Hi Bill, Both of these excerpts are me. On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: >> I'm pretty sure there are valid contracts (verbal and otherwise) for which >> there is no document. When I got my IANAL certificate, I thought I knew >> that a valid contract required only an exchange of consideration and >> assent by both parties. > > Hi Marc, > > IANAL, but IIRC from the contract law class I took back in college, it > requires an exchange of consideration and a "meeting of the minds." If > you can show that both parties understood themselves to be agreeing to > the same thing, you have a contract, even on a handshake. On the other > hand, if you can show that the parties reasonably had a significantly > different understanding of what they were agreeing to at the time they > agreed to it, or that they weren't indicating agreement on anything at > all then no contract formed. I'm still not either. It seems like we are agreeing here. > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM, John Springer wrote: >> There is a vast difference >> between the contract may not be enforceable and there never was a contract. >> We have a number of folks here loudly and repeatedly asserting the latter. I >> have no particular dispute with the former and respectfully disagree with >> the latter. > > Hi John, > > Can you identify the exchange of consideration involved during a > legacy registration? Can you identify the terms on which the minds > met? I'll be happy to share the documentation from my registration > back in the early '90s if you need an example to review. Me doing so or not would have no effect on the original fact of the matter. I am familiar with the concept that at least some of the legacy holders have come to regard Jon Postel as Santa Claus and the date of their legacy allocation or assignment as a combination of their birthday and Christmas. Any misconstrual of the nature of the original exchange is merely a useful fiction. I reject the idea that legacy allocations and assignments were gifts. Perhaps that is excessively existential of me but there you have it. John Springer > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > From mysidia at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 23:18:48 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:18:48 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> <4E1C7099-0E2E-4BBE-824B-CAECFE117891@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/19/12, William Herrin wrote: > The PDP? Really? That's their protection? > The same board of seven trustees that adopts and rejects policy by a > simple majority vote also sets the PDP by a simple majority vote. If The size of the company does not matter, the available protections are the same. All organizations that receive service from the RIR must be treated equally, or so said the ICP-2. ARIN has a mission, and some rules they have to follow besides the PDP. If the ARIN board were to act so egregiously, and the community were not in agreement, the situation may create interest from other organizations that have a role in the standards making process. For example, ARIN has to follow some RFCs in their allocation and management of resources; if there were sufficient demand from the community, the IETF or IAB may have something to say about it. It is possible that the ICANN community would select a new organization to replace ARIN. -- -JH From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 23:22:57 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:22:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> Message-ID: <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: > New registrations John. *New* registrations. Bill - Despite your assertion, that is not the case. ARIN's own articles of incorporation, the press release announcing its formation, and its role as a Regional Internet Registry in the Internet number registry system are all evidence to the contrary. Again, you can't give people a voice in the policies by which the IP numbers are managed in region without having those policies apply to the resources in the region (and globally, to extent that policies are coordinated) - "ARIN is intended to provide Internet service providers in North America an opportunity to help develop Internet management policies within the region and, through ARIN's collaboration with other regional registries, globally." (NSF Press Release on ARIN's formation, June 24, 1997) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 19 23:25:08 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:25:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> New registrations John. *New* registrations. > > ?Despite your assertion, that is not the case. See Randy Bush's 1997 presentation to FNCAC (Federal Networking Council Advisory Committee) seeking approval for ARIN. Pay close attention to the last bullet on slide 9. http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf That's what folks were promised John. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From mysidia at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 23:29:44 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:29:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20120619195501.H42665@mail.inlandnet.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619195501.H42665@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: On 6/19/12, John Springer wrote: > I reject the idea that legacy allocations and assignments were gifts. > Perhaps that is excessively existential of me but there you have it. [snip] That may well be correct, but I have yet to ever see any holder of legacy assigned resources show a copy of an invoice, check stub, a signed contract, or papers of any kind that show any consideration was made to the legacy registry in exchange for the service of creating a network number, database entry, contact directory listing, and returning of an allocation handle. Let alone an agreement for an ongoing service of retaining and maintaining that database entry or contact listing for an unspecified period of time. > John Springer -- -JH From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 23:32:57 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:32:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> Message-ID: <3A2AA99F-85D2-4C6E-8319-180BAFFC31EF@arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> New registrations John. *New* registrations. >> >> Despite your assertion, that is not the case. > > See Randy Bush's 1997 presentation to FNCAC (Federal Networking > Council Advisory Committee) seeking approval for ARIN. Pay close > attention to the last bullet on slide 9. > > http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf > > That's what folks were promised John. Bill - Indeed, I'm well aware of the earlier slide deck to FNCAC. You can't have self-governance without providing a mechanism that allows for development of policies by the community, and it's apparent that the actual formation and announcement both reflect this understanding and are far more definitive. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 19 23:39:36 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:39:36 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <3A2AA99F-85D2-4C6E-8319-180BAFFC31EF@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <3A2AA99F-85D2-4C6E-8319-180BAFFC31EF@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:32 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>>> New registrations John. *New* registrations. >>> >>> ?Despite your assertion, that is not the case. >> >> See Randy Bush's 1997 presentation to FNCAC (Federal Networking >> Council Advisory Committee) seeking approval for ARIN. Pay close >> attention to the last bullet on slide 9. >> >> http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf >> >> That's what folks were promised John. > > ?Indeed, I'm well aware of the earlier slide deck to FNCAC. > > ?You can't have self-governance without providing a mechanism > ?that allows for development of policies by the community, and > ?it's apparent that the actual formation and announcement both > ?reflect this understanding and are far more definitive. For all subsequent registrations, John. Which is not contradicted by any of the documentation, early or late and is consistent with the totality of information rendered to FNCAC in support of the process and is consistent with ARIN's actual behavior these past 15 years. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 23:39:25 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:39:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> New registrations John. *New* registrations. >> >> ?Despite your assertion, that is not the case. > > See Randy Bush's 1997 presentation to FNCAC (Federal Networking > Council Advisory Committee) seeking approval for ARIN. Pay close > attention to the last bullet on slide 9. > > http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf I see: "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy changes" I also see: " ? Address assignment must follow network topology, so 1000 registries can not bloom ? IP registries deal with ISPs and most ISPs now have clauses in their contracts about address nonportability ? Try to sell address space, and NATs and other walls will appear, and only fill the coffers of the router makers, not the feds Stewardship not Business ? Registries perform address allocation not sale ? Addresses are a finite resource ? Under ARIN, allocations will have to be justified technically, just as they are today ? Actual engineering plans are used to evaluate justifications ? But it has to be run like a business or it will fail the public trust " But there have already been policy changes that violate the principles outlined in these slides. Some on PPML would like to see a 1000 registries bloom, some would like for technical justification to be removed, etc. AS JC just wrote: "You can't have self-governance without providing a mechanism that allows for development of policies by the community" even if it is policy we don't particularly like. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 19 23:46:10 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:46:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <3A2AA99F-85D2-4C6E-8319-180BAFFC31EF@arin.net> Message-ID: <19DACFC8-ACDA-45EA-A040-7F83F7162BFB@arin.net> On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: > For all subsequent registrations, John. Which is not contradicted by > any of the documentation, early or late and is consistent with the > totality of information rendered to FNCAC in support of the process > and is consistent with ARIN's actual behavior these past 15 years. Strange. We apply new policies to the entirety of the registry including the Bulk Whois policy, the abuse contact policy, residential privacy policy, and others. You are welcome to believe that these (and any other policies) should only apply to subsequent registrations, but I just have to remind the folks on the PPML list that they should not feel constrained by your particular belief system. Best wishes, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 20 00:04:14 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:04:14 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <19DACFC8-ACDA-45EA-A040-7F83F7162BFB@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <3A2AA99F-85D2-4C6E-8319-180BAFFC31EF@arin.net> <19DACFC8-ACDA-45EA-A040-7F83F7162BFB@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:46 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> For all subsequent registrations, John. Which is not contradicted by >> any of the documentation, early or late and is consistent with the >> totality of information rendered to FNCAC in support of the process >> and is consistent with ARIN's actual behavior these past 15 years. > > Strange. ?We apply new policies to the entirety of the registry > including the Bulk Whois policy, the abuse contact policy, > residential privacy policy, and others. Bulk whois (or any alternate or additional kind of whois) is a business process not a policy. It may have come about due to policy but it's a really long stretch to call it a change in legacy address policy. Ditto making a copy of the technical contact and labelling it "abuse contact." It's not as if you required the legacy registrants to submit an abuse contact. Residential privacy isn't even relevant to legacy registrations where there are no SWIP reporting requirements whatsoever and never were. Next? > You are welcome to > believe that these (and any other policies) should only apply > to subsequent registrations, but I just have to remind the > folks on the PPML list that they should not feel constrained > by your particular belief system. Yup, I'm just a jerk with a keyboard. But they probably should take notice of what the judge said in Nortel when he ruled that they had the intrinsic right to use and exclude others' use of their legacy addresses on the Internet independent of ARIN and its registration records. A ruling which was not reversed despite ARIN's intervention. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 20 00:04:17 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:04:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FE14BC1.1080309@umn.edu> On 6/19/12 22:25 CDT, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> New registrations John. *New* registrations. >> >> Despite your assertion, that is not the case. > > See Randy Bush's 1997 presentation to FNCAC (Federal Networking > Council Advisory Committee) seeking approval for ARIN. Pay close > attention to the last bullet on slide 9. > > http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf > > That's what folks were promised John. Would you agree that the policies that are referred to in the slide deck are best represented by RFC 2050? Given RFC 2050 is dated Nov 1996 and the slide deck is dated Apr 1997, do we agree that is reasonable? If not RFC 2050, then what? RFC 2050, Section 3.1 last paragraph; IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met. The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer exists. In the event of address invalidation, reasonable efforts will be made by the appropriate registry to inform the organization that the addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv4 address space. To me this says assignments are revocable for cause. So, I don't think it is reasonable to limit it only to new registrations. And, I bet even Randy doesn't think that means they would never ever change at all. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 00:14:18 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:14:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE14BC1.1080309@umn.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <4FE14BC1.1080309@umn.edu> Message-ID: Hi David, On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:04 AM, David Farmer wrote: > > > RFC 2050, Section 3.1 last paragraph; > > ? ?IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met. > ? The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it > ? is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer > ? exists. ?In the event of address invalidation, reasonable efforts > ? will be made by the appropriate registry to inform the organization > ? that the addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv4 > ? address space. > > To me this says assignments are revocable for cause. ?So, I don't think it > is reasonable to limit it only to new registrations. Agreed, which is why I will be happy to support 174. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 20 01:00:11 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:00:11 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE14BC1.1080309@umn.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <4FE14BC1.1080309@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:04 AM, David Farmer wrote: > On 6/19/12 22:25 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >> See Randy Bush's 1997 presentation to FNCAC (Federal Networking >> Council Advisory Committee) seeking approval for ARIN. Pay close >> attention to the last bullet on slide 9. >> >> http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf >> >> That's what folks were promised John. > > Would you agree that the policies that are referred to in the slide deck are > best represented by RFC 2050? Nope. AFAICT, registrations at that date were done under the 8/95 template which referenced a number of RFCs, NOT including 2050. 2050 was not referenced until ARIN's 7/97 template, post-legacy. >?If not RFC 2050, then what? According to the 8/95 template, the most relevant controlling document at the time was RFC 1466. It described practices intended to apply to allocations made subsequent to 5/1993. > RFC 2050, Section 3.1 last paragraph; > > ? The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it > ? is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer > ? exists. This language was new to RFC 2050. Nothing similar was present in its predecessor, RFC 1466. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From mysidia at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 01:07:58 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:07:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/19/12, William Herrin wrote: > See Randy Bush's 1997 presentation to FNCAC (Federal Networking > Council Advisory Committee) seeking approval for ARIN. Pay close > attention to the last bullet on slide 9. > http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf > That's what folks were promised John. And resource policies hardly ever effect existing allocations, whether legacy or not; I think you would be very hard pressed to find any policy change imposing a new substantive requirement on an existing resource holder at the time of the policy change, who is not requesting more resources or changes to existing resources. Most policy changes are about resource changes, delegations, new allocations, transfers, and maintaining proper contact information. However, it is still ARIN defined policy that the resources are subject to. And one statement in a slide is not a definitive promise that the precise policy statement for existing allocations are set in stone until the end of time. Especially, when the discussion comes to matters such as the legacy resource holder wishing to make changes to their network, such as assigning part of it to a customer, transferring / changing the organization administering parts of it. Or other things that were not promised, and not even offered by the legacy registry, so these things were not actually allowable, prior to ARIN being created, and establishing policies that allowed such a thing as a delegation or a transfer. > Bill Herrin -- -JH From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 20 01:35:12 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:35:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> Message-ID: Several changes since then... BofT and AC (slide 4) are from the community, elected by the membership, for example. Much of the staff is no longer from InterNIC. (slide 4) ALyCNIC is now known as LACNIC. LACNIC and AfriNIC are now fully operational. IP registries deal with both ISPs and End-users in most cases. I see nothing limiting the scope of slide 7 to new allocations. Looks to me like slide 9 describes the startup state of the registry and its initial policies. You cannot reconcile bullet 3 with bullet 5 if you interpret bullet 5 as if the phrase "for all eternity" were somehow added on to the end of it. Note also bullet 4 is irreconcilable with bullet 3, but reflects that bullets 4 and 5 taken together represent the startup state of registry policy and not a permanent result. However, the most entertaining of all is that as near as I can tell, that deck basically represents a campaign stump speech given to a group of politicians by what amounted to an internet politician at the time. Nonetheless, you stake your entire case on the idea that one bullet must be interpreted in a particular way which stands in contravention to many of the other bullets in said same slide deck and amounts to a mere hint of a campaign promise at best? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. Owen On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:11 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> New registrations John. *New* registrations. >> >> Despite your assertion, that is not the case. > > See Randy Bush's 1997 presentation to FNCAC (Federal Networking > Council Advisory Committee) seeking approval for ARIN. Pay close > attention to the last bullet on slide 9. > > http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf > > That's what folks were promised John. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mlindsey at lb3law.com Wed Jun 20 01:53:53 2012 From: mlindsey at lb3law.com (Lindsey, Marc) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:53:53 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> Hello John, You wrote: To me, it is actually much simpler than that. There is a vast difference between the contract may not be enforceable and there never was a contract. We have a number of folks here loudly and repeatedly asserting the latter. I have no particular dispute with the former and respectfully disagree with the latter. . . . . At the moment of exchange of consideration a contract existed. The terms of the agreement may be lost and may very well be unenforceable, but those observations are orthogonal to the existance of the original agreement. <<< M Lindsey >>> I suffer from a lawyer's mindset. To me, an unenforceable contract is the same thing as no contract. > << M Lindsey >> I suspect that I'm not catching all of the nuisance I do hope autocomplete has struck again and you meant nuance, although I strongly suspect you could find some in agreement with the original sentiment. :) <<< M Lindsey >>> Yes, an unfortunate typo! >in your statement above, but you appear to be removing an important fact. Individuals and companies serving as US contractors -- while acting on the USG's behalf -- gave out the legacy IP numbers to end users and network operators. How about this then? Individuals and companies serving as US contractors -- while acting on the USG's behalf -- gave out the legacy IP numbers to end users and network operators in return for those parties putting them into use and other valuable considerations the exact nature of which may now be lost and unenforceable but which certainly existed once. <<< M Lindsey >>> That's a possible theory of what could have happened. I don't know that there is any actual evidence available to support that theory. But even assuming the USG contractor thought that these sorts of conditions ought to apply, that opinion does not establish an enforceable condition on the legacy holders today to comply with RIR policy absent an enforceable (preferably written) agreement. I do think struggling to find informal agreements in the historical (unwritten) record as the source of ARIN's authority over number resources is not really a winning proposition. The better argument (which John Curran touched on in a PPML message for me earlier today) is that the RIRs have been delegated by ICANN authority to serve as registrars and registries for numbers allocated or assigned directly by the RIRs, all as part of the responsibilities/obligations assumed by ICANN under its (written) contract with the USG. This is neat and clean with respect to numbers directly allocated and assigned by the RIRs. And it's understandable why someone looking to establish ARIN's authority over legacy numbers would use this same line of reasoning to assert implied or inherited authority over legacy numbers. The reasoning is also appealing because the RIRs have maintained registries listing legacy numbers (even off-contract numbers). But it collapses when applied to legacy numbers. To the best of my knowledge (after considerable research), there are no contracts between ICANN and the USG or between ICANN and the RIRs that grant the RIRs' authority over legacy numbers. . . . . Look, it is not like a bunch of ARIN meanies are swooping down on pore ole cranky, but loveable legacy grandmas lookin ta steal the ranch. Most of this ongoing kerfluffle is the result of a small (but growing) number of motivated players trying to manufacture a windfall. Nothing wrong with that per se, but in this case, the ARIN community needs to agree to it and so far they haven't seemed to. In my case, I have found the "remove needs" proponents to be overly reliant on blank assertion and insufficiently persuasive. <<< M Lindsey >>> Yes, I get this point. The combination of the dwindling supply of free-pool IPv4 numbers, the excruciatingly slow uptake of v6 and the vast amount of underutilized previously allocated (mostly, but not only) legacy numbers has spawned an active after-market in IPv4 numbers. And the economics of this marketplace have drawn in many new stakeholders/voices to number resource governance policy discussion. It is understandable why long-standing/contributing members of the ARIN community want to be cautious. I do, however, think progressive market-driven transfer policies will actually produce positive benefits for the community (e.g., increase accuracy of the directory, encourage more legacy number holders to join the club, stimulate an increase in supply of IPv4 numbers, reduce barriers to putting previously allocated numbers back into productive (service fee generating) use, and improve marketplace transparency). I know that I've failed so far, but I will keep trying to persuade you to see these benefits, too! Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-2564 Email: mlindsey at lb3law.com From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 07:24:14 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:24:14 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <3D722824-981C-4137-A3B7-774455D6C74D@corp.arin.net> On Jun 20, 2012, at 1:53 AM, Lindsey, Marc wrote: > <<< M Lindsey >>> ... > I do, however, think progressive market-driven transfer policies will actually produce positive benefits for the community (e.g., increase accuracy of the directory, encourage more legacy number holders to join the club, stimulate an increase in supply of IPv4 numbers, reduce barriers to putting previously allocated numbers back into productive (service fee generating) use, and improve marketplace transparency). I know that I've failed so far, but I will keep trying to persuade you to see these benefits, too! Marc - I will not comment on the merits or concerns of "progressive market-driven transfer policies", except to note that the community has generally developed increasingly progressive transfer policies over time. It is the ability of the community to develop these policies for the registry and all resources therein that ARIN is obligated to defend and hence the reason for my response to any assertions to the contrary. Your participation in development of these policies is not only welcome, but encouraged, along with the participation of every other party which has an interest in these policies. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From info at arin.net Wed Jun 20 09:12:31 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:12:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 Proposal Originator: Harrison Grundy Proposal Version: 1 Date: 20 June 2012 Proposal Type: Modify Policy Term: Permanent Policy Statement: Delete section 8.2, and renumber section 8.3 to 8.2, Add language to the new Section 8.2 (Transfers to Specified Recipients): "ARIN will provisionally update the registry to reflect the transfer request initiated by the resource holder pending ARIN's approval or rejection of the transfer. If the transfer is rejected, ARIN will update the registry to reflect the original resource holder." Rationale: Transfers due to mergers and acquisitions should follow the same process as any directed transfer. Current language in the NRPM is silent on the status of those resources as it relates to RSAs, while requiring that the number resources of the merged organisations comply with ARIN's policies. This situation is needlessly confusing, and serves only to create a legal grey area for these resources. There is also no clear delineation on when an entity may elect to perform an 8.2 transfer over an 8.3 transfer, beyond the requirement that "the new entity has acquired assets that used the transferred resources from the current registrant". Purchasing a single router from an entity should not magically transform what is otherwise a transfer to a specified recipient into a special transfer that does not carry the requirements of an 8.3 transfer. The text of 8.2 would also appear to preclude transferring resources that are not currently in use. This policy proposal serves to homogenise transfer requirements so that there is one simple method of transfer, regardless of the business circumstances surrounding that transaction. By immediately updating the registry upon receiving a request, renumbering pain as part of M&A transactions will only occur where the resources will not be used for their already approved purpose. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From john.sweeting at twcable.com Wed Jun 20 10:39:57 2012 From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:39:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal v2 - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EA3BDCA8@lb3ex01> Message-ID: Marc, We just wanted to inform you that Rob Seastrom has been assigned as the Primary Shepherd for your proposal. Stacy Hughes is Secondary Shepherd. They should be reaching out to you very shortly to discuss your proposal. Thank you, John ? AC Chair From: , Marc > To: ">" > Subject: [arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal v2 - Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements under 8.2 Policy Proposal Name ? Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements Proposal Originator ? Marc Lindsey Proposal Version - 2 Date ? June 14, 2012 Policy type ? Modification to existing policy Policy term - Permanent Policy Statement Delete sections 8.1. and 8.2 in their entirety and replace them with the following: 8.1 Principles ARIN will not change its WHOIS database to record the transfer of number resources between organizations unless such transfer complies with this Section 8. ARIN is tasked with making prudent decisions when evaluating registration transfer requests. 8.2. Mergers and Acquisitions When the transfer of any number resource is requested by the current registrant or its successor or assign (the ?new entity?), ARIN will transfer the registration of such number resources to the new entity upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has lawfully acquired the resources from the current registrant as the result of a merger, acquisition, reorganization or name change. ARIN will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation. Transfers under this Section 8.2 shall not be contingent upon the new entity?s justification of need for the transferred numbers. If the transfer request pertains to non-legacy number resources, the new entity shall be required to execute, in its own name, an RSA covering the transferred numbers, and pay the applicable registration fees. If the transfer request pertains to legacy numbers, the transfer shall not be contingent upon the new entity entering into an RSA, LRSA or any other form of written agreement with ARIN. For each transfer of legacy numbers under this Section 8.2, ARIN shall assess, and the new entity shall pay, a one-time ?Legacy Record Change Fee? as set forth in the fee schedule unless the new entity elects, in its discretion, to enter into an LRSA covering the transferred legacy numbers and pays the applicable registration fees. [Note: This proposal incorporates the definition of ?legacy number? from proposal 172 as revised June 6, 2012. The amount of the Legacy Record Change fee is TBD] Rationale ? The current version of 8.2 actually discourages legacy holders from (a) updating the WHOIS database, and (b) paying fees to assist with records management associated with the WHOIS database. Some entities that currently control resources do not attempt to update the WHOIS records because the current transfer process puts at risk their ability to retain and use their numbers. Under the current process, legacy holders or their lawful successors must first prove that they are the lawful successor (which is necessary and appropriate). But they then must also justify their need to continue using numbers they obtained prior to ARIN?s existence. Once they pass the needs hurdle, they must then execute an RSA (not even an LRSA) that alters their rights and subjects their numbers to audit and possible revocation under then-current policy. For non-legacy registrants, the process should also be less burdensome and uncertain. Ensuring the continuity of a company?s IP addressing scheme as part of an M&A transactions should be within the control of the entities directly involved. ARIN?s discretionary approval of transfers in this context introduces an undesirable and unnecessary contingency. Entities concerned about whether their M&A related update request will be approved by ARIN simply do not attempt to fully update the records. Minimizing the barriers for both legacy and non-legacy holders to update the WHOIS database when changes are required to accurately reflect normal corporate reorganization activities will help increase the accuracy of the WHOIS database, which benefits the community as a whole. Timetable for implementation - Immediate Marc Lindsey Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP 2001 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-2564 Email:mlindsey at lb3law.com Website:www.lb3law.com ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john.sweeting at twcable.com Wed Jun 20 10:42:07 2012 From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:42:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> Message-ID: Just an FYI to the list to share that AC members Martin Hannigan (Primary) and Dan Alexander (Secondary) are the assigned shepherds for this proposal. On 6/19/12 11:55 AM, "ARIN" wrote: >ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > >ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the >Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy >Development Process. > >The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next >regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly >scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended >to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how >to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > >The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, >particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning >behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough >vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > >Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > >The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: >https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > >Mailing list subscription information can be found >at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > >Regards, > >Communications and Member Services >American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > >## * ## > > >ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > >Proposal Originator: David Farmer > >Proposal Version: 1.0 > >Date: 19 June 2012 > >Proposal type: Modify > >Policy term: Permanent > >Policy statement: > >Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; > >ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN >number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, >including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the >Internet Registry system. > >Rationale: > >There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to legacy >resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all >resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are legacy-issued >resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within North >American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated >in the region. > >Timetable for implementation: Immediate >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. From john.sweeting at twcable.com Wed Jun 20 10:44:15 2012 From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:44:15 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 In-Reply-To: <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> Message-ID: Hi Harrison, Just wanted to inform you that Chris Grundeman (Primary) and David Farmer (Secondary) have been assigned as shepherds for your proposal. They should be contacting you soon. Thank you for your participation in the ARIN Policy Development Process. Thanks, John - AC Chair ++ On 6/20/12 9:12 AM, "ARIN" wrote: >ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 > >ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the >Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy >Development Process. > >The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next >regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly >scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended >to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how >to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > >The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, >particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning >behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough >vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > >Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > >The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: >https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > >Mailing list subscription information can be found >at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > >Regards, > >Communications and Member Services >American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > >## * ## > > >ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 > >Proposal Originator: Harrison Grundy > >Proposal Version: 1 > >Date: 20 June 2012 > >Proposal Type: Modify > >Policy Term: Permanent > >Policy Statement: > >Delete section 8.2, and renumber section 8.3 to 8.2, > >Add language to the new Section 8.2 (Transfers to Specified Recipients): > >"ARIN will provisionally update the registry to reflect the transfer >request initiated by the resource holder pending ARIN's approval or >rejection of the transfer. If the transfer is rejected, ARIN will update >the registry to reflect the original resource holder." > >Rationale: > >Transfers due to mergers and acquisitions should follow the same process >as any directed transfer. Current language in the NRPM is silent on the >status of those resources as it relates to RSAs, while requiring that >the number resources of the merged organisations comply with ARIN's >policies. This situation is needlessly confusing, and serves only to >create a legal grey area for these resources. > >There is also no clear delineation on when an entity may elect to >perform an 8.2 transfer over an 8.3 transfer, beyond the requirement >that "the new entity has acquired assets that used the transferred >resources from the current registrant". Purchasing a single router from >an entity should not magically transform what is otherwise a transfer to >a specified recipient into a special transfer that does not carry the >requirements of an 8.3 transfer. The text of 8.2 would also appear to >preclude transferring resources that are not currently in use. > >This policy proposal serves to homogenise transfer requirements so that >there is one simple method of transfer, regardless of the business >circumstances surrounding that transaction. > >By immediately updating the registry upon receiving a request, >renumbering pain as part of M&A transactions will only occur where the >resources will not be used for their already approved purpose. > >Timetable for implementation: Immediate >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. From cgrundemann at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 10:50:51 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:50:51 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 and WHOIS - Work Needed? Message-ID: Hail PPML! Many of you have likely seen this article (or a similar one[1][2]) by now: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ The question it seems to raise for us is: "Will ARIN and the other RIRs maintain accurate WHOIS for IPv6 long term, or will law enforcement feel the need to step in directly?" This was the primary focus of ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement[3][4] which was abandoned after the spring PPM. Does anyone here feel that further work is needed in this space? I would be more than happy to help create new, more acceptable policy to address this potential issue. Feel free to respond here or contact me off-list. Cheers, ~Chris [1] - http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/20/3098246/fbi-dea-ipv6-traceability-legislation [2] - http://gizmodo.com/5919831/fbi-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-the-police [3] - https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_7.html [4] - http://chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2012/arin-update-apr2012-part2-draft-policies/ -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 20 11:06:40 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:06:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > However, if you really do want to do something > different with your resources (like transfer them to another party) then > you need to get involved in the policy development process. [Milton L Mueller] There you go, begging the question again. This is just another unilateral, verbal assertion of authority over an issue that is legally and politically contested. If ARIN has no contractual authority over the legacy holder, then on what basis can it claim that the legacy holder must get its approval before it transfers them to another party? From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 20 11:22:07 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:22:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B862@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > ARIN was created to give the users of IP numbers (e.g. ISPs) within the > North American region a voice in the policies by which they are _managed_ > and allocated There is no way to provide a voice in policies to those > in the region without potential for that the actual policies for management > of resources in the region to be changed as a result. > >Thanks! >/John John, We've been through this before. ICANN was created by the USG (and is still supervised by it even more directly than ARIN) to manage the root of the DNS. Country code top level domain managers were the DNS version of "legacy holders." They were given their TLDs before ICANN existed and thus the new corporation had no contractual authority over them, yet still they relied on ICANN's management of the IANA database. ICANN tried to unilaterally assert authority over them, in essence attempting to force them to sign contracts by refusing to update their root zone records. That, um, didn't go over too well. It amazes me that ARIN would try to repeat the same discredited trick. True, there is, or may be, less risk of creating an international geopolitical incident because other nation-states are not as involved, but the basics are the same. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER LEGACY HOLDERS. Get used to it. It's a historical quirk, it's messy, but it's just true. You will need to develop a way to accommodate yourself to that fact, just as ICANN did. I'd be happy to acquaint you with the evolution of the ccTLD contracts/MoUs/"exchange of letters" with ccTLD operators, and the emergence of the ccNSO, though I assume your full time paid staff can look it up. Based on the kind of legal advice you seem to be getting, however, you might do better to talk to me. John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgrundemann at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 11:23:01 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:23:01 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> However, if you really do want to do something >> different with your resources (like transfer them to another party) then >> you need to get involved in the policy development process. > > [Milton L Mueller] There you go, begging the question again. This is just another unilateral, verbal assertion of authority over an issue that is legally and politically contested. > > If ARIN has no contractual authority over the legacy holder, then on what basis can it claim that the legacy holder must get its approval before it transfers them to another party? Hi Milton, You seem to keep repeating this mantra and while I am not a lawyer, I am curious; how does the lack of a contract give one party infinite rights and another no rights? Thanks, ~Chris > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 20 11:24:59 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:24:59 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B879@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > << M Lindsey >> I suspect that I'm not catching all of the nuisance > > I do hope autocomplete has struck again and you meant nuance, although I > strongly suspect you could find some in agreement with the original > sentiment. :) [Milton L Mueller] I think there are some Freudian typos taking place. This is one. But there was another. How many of you caught John Curran's response when asked whether ARIN would refuse to update its database for a legacy holder? He meant to say, "Most definitely!" But he typed, "Most defiantly!" From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 11:28:29 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:28:29 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <32B8889E-9915-4BB1-A39F-08938D27F334@arin.net> On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] There you go, begging the question again. This is just another unilateral, verbal assertion of authority over an issue that is legally and politically contested. Milton - I'm afraid you have it backwards. ARIN is part of the the Internet registry system which coordinates a unique set of IP address registrations to facilitate Internet growth and operations. We run the registry according to the policies set by the community and were formed for that purpose. I am unaware of any authority that any legacy holder has over our operation of the registry, although a set of specific rights is available per the LRSA. > If ARIN has no contractual authority over the legacy holder, then on what basis can it claim that the legacy holder must get its approval before it transfers them to another party? What is "them" in the above sentence? (before it transfers "them") If they want to transfer the registration of unique addresses in the ARIN registry, then they'll definitely need to put in a request and comply with the community policies. ARIN's does have authority over its registry, we run it per the policies set by the community, and you have yet to show that a legacy holder has any authority or rights to the contrary. If it's not the registration of unique addresses in the ARIN registry being transferred, then it's not a matter for ARIN. I have no idea what they perceive to be selling, but that properly is a matter for consideration by the buyer, not ARIN. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Wed Jun 20 11:31:10 2012 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:31:10 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 and WHOIS - Work Needed? In-Reply-To: (Chris Grundemann's message of "Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:50:51 -0600") References: Message-ID: <8662amknk1.fsf@seastrom.com> Chris Grundemann writes: > Hail PPML! > > Many of you have likely seen this article (or a similar one[1][2]) by > now: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ > > The question it seems to raise for us is: "Will ARIN and the other > RIRs maintain accurate WHOIS for IPv6 long term, or will law > enforcement feel the need to step in directly?" The issue in this article seems to boil down to an assumption that coming back to ARIN every 15 years for more space is a step away from goodness when it comes to keeping whois data up to date. There's no difference in billing interval for IPv6 (vs existing IPv4) and everyone's under RSA so everyone gets a ping in the form of a bill and a check. That represents a huge step forward from the status quo for IPv6. My guess is that the aggregate accuracy of whois data in 10 years will be "somewhat better" to "much better" than IPv4 is today, but not miraculously perfect. No NAT means a prayer of figuring out exactly whose computer was doing misdeeds (even with privacy hacks, far better than one pipe). The Bureau's gotta be excited about that, at least I hope they are. The thing these guys need to be worried about is CGN. You can't get a search warrant issued for a whole zip code. For better or worse, IPv6 is the way out of the woods. My take is that the article is much ado about nothing. Wish Declan had called someone for deep dive rather than sound bites. Then again that may not sell advertising hits. -r From cengel at conxeo.com Wed Jun 20 11:34:51 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:34:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> Message-ID: Again, IANAL, but I am a bit confused by some of the assertions being made here. It certainly makes sense to me that if no legal contract exists between ARIN and an entity then ARIN has no authority to assert an obligation on that entity. However, it would also follow that such an entity had no authority to exert an obligation upon ARIN to maintain listings for it or to update those listings per it's request. In my limited understanding if no agreement exists between 2 parties then NEITHER has obligation toward the other, other then that which is codified in law/statute. Even assuming that an assignment prior to ARIN established some sort of exclusive right to use an address block for an entity, it does not follow that also infers a right to transfer such exclusive right to use to another entity and to do so absent any restrictions. The right to use a resource and the right to transfer that use are not identical. I believe there are a significant number of historical examples of such arrangements. Tenant farming for example, a tenant farmer might have an exclusive right to use a particular parcel of land for farming, but they didn't have the right to transfer the right to use the land to a 3rd party, and certainly not to a 3rd party who wanted to do something other then farming on it. None of this speaks to what ARIN's policies should be, but it seems pretty clear to me that absent a contract, a court order or a statute ARIN can update it's registries according to whatever policies are adopted which by it. Christopher Engel From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Jun 20 11:49:59 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:49:59 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <3D722824-981C-4137-A3B7-774455D6C74D@corp.arin.net> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> <3D722824-981C-4137-A3B7-774455D6C74D@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D484@MAIL1.polartel.local> Please bear with me here as I want to make sure I understand what is going on. I believe that pretty much everybody supports the legacy holders and their ability to maintain and use the IPv4 address space that was assigned to them pre-ARIN. Nobody (that I am aware of) is trying to invalidate that assignment or reclaim the space from the original assignees. These assignments, were (IMHO) just that, assignments, not gifts or grants or deeds or titles. Please educate me if any of my assertions above are incorrect or invalid. What I am seeing from the community is that if the original assignees want to transfer the assignment to another party then the community asserts that the transfer should comply with current in force policy. It is possible I am not completely understanding this point. If you look through past communications I have often tried to act as a champion of legacy holders and I will continue to do so in the future. I am not now a legacy holder. I will vigorously oppose any action that tries to invalidate any original and legitimate assignment of space to the user it was originally assigned to. I think there are several red herrings being chased up tributaries in an attempt to undermine ARIN or otherwise cause chaos. I suspect that the motivation has little to do with the actual issues being discussed. I am firmly convinced that if a "legacy holder" wants to work with ARIN to straighten out records ARIN will go above and beyond the call to make things right and protect the assignment as originally created so that the networks involved operate as seamlessly as possible. This would be a no risk effort for the legacy holder, as that if it doesn't pan out they could walk away and be right where they started and out only the effort of trying. Thanks to all and I apologize if this wasted anyone's time. I truly hope it does not muddy the waters further. Kevin Kargel (personal assertions only) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 11:51:50 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:51:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B862@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B862@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: John, We?ve been through this before. ICANN was created by the USG (and is still supervised by it even more directly than ARIN) to manage the root of the DNS. Country code top level domain managers were the DNS version of ?legacy holders.? They were given their TLDs before ICANN existed and thus the new corporation had no contractual authority over them, yet still they relied on ICANN?s management of the IANA database. ICANN tried to unilaterally assert authority over them, in essence attempting to force them to sign contracts by refusing to update their root zone records. That, um, didn?t go over too well. It's is not directly comparable; in fact, ARIN has encouraged legacy address holders to update their registration records and has providing registry services without change since inception. A legacy holder does not have to sign any agreement, and has their registration and services continue in nearly the same form as the day of ARIN's inception. (In fact, we face a conflict between the community expecting that all address holders, including legacy, need to be more proactive in updating their registration data and the desire to minimize burdens on existing registrants) It amazes me that ARIN would try to repeat the same discredited trick. True, there is, or may be, less risk of creating an international geopolitical incident because other nation-states are not as involved, but the basics are the same. YOU DON?T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER LEGACY HOLDERS. Get used to it. It?s a historical quirk, it?s messy, but it?s just true. You will need to develop a way to accommodate yourself to that fact, just as ICANN did. Your reasoned discourse does not become any more credible due to the yelling/USE OF CAPS, and in fact may be seen as the refuge for arguments which otherwise lack support. You might also want to consider that the current ongoing process within ICANN regarding establishment of policy for relegation of country code TLDs... This does indeed have parallels, in that everyone is coming together to establish clear policies for situations which were not considered in the past, much like the formation of new transfer policies for IP addresses. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 20 11:53:18 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:53:18 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > made here. It certainly makes sense to me that if no legal contract > exists between ARIN and an entity then ARIN has no authority to assert > an obligation on that entity. However, it would also follow that such an > entity had no authority to exert an obligation upon ARIN to maintain > listings for it or to update those listings per it's request. In my > limited understanding if no agreement exists between 2 parties then > NEITHER has obligation toward the other, other than that which is > codified in law/statute. [Milton L Mueller] I agree with this. No legacy holder could sue ARIN for not updating a listing. Just as no ccTLD registry could have sued ICANN for refusing to update their root zone entries. However, if ARIN wants to protect and advance its status as the authoritative IP registry, then ARIN has other issues to worry about besides whether it is contractually obligated. E.g., ICANN backed down from its ccTLD coup because of the way its actions undermined its legitimacy and acceptance by the global community. > Even assuming that an assignment prior to ARIN established some sort of > exclusive right to use an address block for an entity, it does not > follow that also infers a right to transfer such exclusive right to use > to another entity and to do so absent any restrictions. [Milton L Mueller] I am afraid that it does involve both rights. > The right to use > a resource and the right to transfer that use are not identical. I > believe there are a significant number of historical examples of such > arrangements. Tenant farming for example, a tenant farmer might have an > exclusive right to use a particular parcel of land for farming, but they > didn't have the right to transfer the right to use the land to a 3rd > party, and certainly not to a 3rd party who wanted to do something other > then farming on it. [Milton L Mueller] True, right to use and right to transfer are separable aspects of the bundle of rights. The flaw in your argument, however, is that the tenant farmer has a contract with the land owner (that's what 'tenancy' usually means) that prevents such unauthorized transfers. Or, in other cases, a body of established law governed the relations between landholders and serfs. Absent such an agreement/law, the holder has a de facto right to transfer - or to put it more accurately, no known party has a right to prevent them from transferring the use right. > None of this speaks to what ARIN's policies should be, but it seems > pretty clear to me that absent a contract, a court order or a statute > ARIN can update it's registries according to whatever policies are > adopted which by it. [Milton L Mueller] It's very good that you understand the distinction between what ARIN's legal rights are and what good policy would be. Those who believe that ARIN should not record legacy transfers need to tell us what the policy rationale is. What good does such a refusal do? What harms might come of it? That would be an intelligent topic to discuss. If your concept of "doing good" means: "I hate those f**ing legacy holders and think they should be punished for not playing our 8.3 game" or "I want to punish people who make money from IP address trades," I suggest that this is not a constructive policy. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 12:10:06 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:10:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7AF6CFA9-3F5D-440E-AF46-CE76C3B8D855@corp.arin.net> On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] It's very good that you understand the distinction between what ARIN's legal rights are and what good policy would be. Those who believe that ARIN should not record legacy transfers need to tell us what the policy rationale is. What good does such a refusal do? What harms might come of it? That would be an intelligent topic to discuss. If your concept of "doing good" means: "I hate those f**ing legacy holders and think they should be punished for not playing our 8.3 game" or "I want to punish people who make money from IP address trades," I suggest that this is not a constructive policy. Amazingly, I now find myself agreeing with Milton (at least on this point): the community needs to focus on the reasoning and rationale in the process of making good policy. Doing so will bring about the most productive outcomes of the policy development process. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 12:18:15 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:18:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B862@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B862@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: John, We?ve been through this before. ICANN was created by the USG (and is still supervised by it even more directly than ARIN) to manage the root of the DNS. Country code top level domain managers were the DNS version of ?legacy holders.? They were given their TLDs before ICANN existed and thus the new corporation had no contractual authority over them, yet still they relied on ICANN?s management of the IANA database. ICANN tried to unilaterally assert authority over them, in essence attempting to force them to sign contracts by refusing to update their root zone records. That, um, didn?t go over too well. It's is not directly comparable; in fact, ARIN has encouraged legacy address holders to update their registration records and has providing registry services without change since inception. A legacy holder does not have to sign any agreement, and has their registration and services continue in nearly the same form as the day of ARIN's inception. (In fact, we face a conflict between the community expecting that all address holders, including legacy, need to be more proactive in updating their registration data and the desire to minimize burdens on existing registrants) It amazes me that ARIN would try to repeat the same discredited trick. True, there is, or may be, less risk of creating an international geopolitical incident because other nation-states are not as involved, but the basics are the same. YOU DON?T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER LEGACY HOLDERS. Get used to it. It?s a historical quirk, it?s messy, but it?s just true. You will need to develop a way to accommodate yourself to that fact, just as ICANN did. Your reasoned discourse does not become any more credible due to the yelling/USE OF CAPS, and in fact may be seen as the refuge for arguments which otherwise lack support. You might also want to consider that the current ongoing process within ICANN regarding establishment of policy for relegation of country code TLDs... This does indeed have parallels, in that everyone is coming together to establish clear policies for situations which were not considered in the past, much like the formation of new transfer policies for IP addresses. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cb.list6 at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 12:39:46 2012 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Cameron Byrne) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:39:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 and WHOIS - Work Needed? In-Reply-To: <8662amknk1.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <8662amknk1.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Chris Grundemann writes: > >> Hail PPML! >> >> Many of you have likely seen this article (or a similar one[1][2]) by >> now: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ >> >> The question it seems to raise for us is: "Will ARIN and the other >> RIRs maintain accurate WHOIS for IPv6 long term, or will law >> enforcement feel the need to step in directly?" > > The issue in this article seems to boil down to an assumption that > coming back to ARIN every 15 years for more space is a step away from > goodness when it comes to keeping whois data up to date. > > There's no difference in billing interval for IPv6 (vs existing IPv4) > and everyone's under RSA so everyone gets a ping in the form of a bill > and a check. ?That represents a huge step forward from the status quo > for IPv6. ?My guess is that the aggregate accuracy of whois data in 10 > years will be "somewhat better" to "much better" than IPv4 is today, > but not miraculously perfect. > > No NAT means a prayer of figuring out exactly whose computer was doing > misdeeds (even with privacy hacks, far better than one pipe). ?The > Bureau's gotta be excited about that, at least I hope they are. > > The thing these guys need to be worried about is CGN. ?You can't get a > search warrant issued for a whole zip code. ?For better or worse, IPv6 > is the way out of the woods. > +1 > My take is that the article is much ado about nothing. ?Wish Declan > had called someone for deep dive rather than sound bites. ?Then again > that may not sell advertising hits. > +1000 This issue has been bantered enough on NANOG. CB > -r > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 20 12:41:39 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:41:39 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D484@MAIL1.polartel.local> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> <3D722824-981C-4137-A3B7-774455D6C74D@corp.arin.net> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D484@MAIL1.polartel.local> Message-ID: <34456717-72a9-4233-8c22-b059f5edf4df@email.android.com> Hi, Thanks for the clear explanation of this point of view. As a legacy holder I appreciate it. (oh and thanks to all those who gave me advice on how to get my /24 routed, I will try again) I have a question: Does the community keep the registry becasue it is the authority or becasue as stewards it thinks keeping a registry is a good thing? If the former, it makes sense to have a set of rules that you try to enforce. And I think you are probably right; nothing at this point requires you to provide service to those who don't follow your rules. You probably can't stop them, but you don't have to serve them. But as you say IANL, and I do not know about any rulings or whatever, that might contradict this. But if it is the later, i.e. it ARIN acts as stewards in the best interests of the IPv4 Internet and registration is a good thing, then would it also be a good thing to allow for registration of transfered addresses even if the method of transfer wasn't one that fell within your approved transfer policy framework? thanks avri Kevin Kargel wrote: > > >Please bear with me here as I want to make sure I understand what is >going >on. > >I believe that pretty much everybody supports the legacy holders and >their >ability to maintain and use the IPv4 address space that was assigned to >them >pre-ARIN. Nobody (that I am aware of) is trying to invalidate that >assignment or reclaim the space from the original assignees. > >These assignments, were (IMHO) just that, assignments, not gifts or >grants >or deeds or titles. > >Please educate me if any of my assertions above are incorrect or >invalid. > >What I am seeing from the community is that if the original assignees >want >to transfer the assignment to another party then the community asserts >that >the transfer should comply with current in force policy. It is >possible I >am not completely understanding this point. > >If you look through past communications I have often tried to act as a >champion of legacy holders and I will continue to do so in the future. >I am >not now a legacy holder. I will vigorously oppose any action that tries >to >invalidate any original and legitimate assignment of space to the user >it >was originally assigned to. > >I think there are several red herrings being chased up tributaries in >an >attempt to undermine ARIN or otherwise cause chaos. I suspect that the >motivation has little to do with the actual issues being discussed. > >I am firmly convinced that if a "legacy holder" wants to work with ARIN >to >straighten out records ARIN will go above and beyond the call to make >things >right and protect the assignment as originally created so that the >networks >involved operate as seamlessly as possible. >This would be a no risk effort for the legacy holder, as that if it >doesn't >pan out they could walk away and be right where they started and out >only >the effort of trying. > >Thanks to all and I apologize if this wasted anyone's time. I truly >hope it >does not muddy the waters further. > >Kevin Kargel >(personal assertions only) >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 20 12:51:06 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:51:06 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 In-Reply-To: <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FE1FF7A.3010003@umn.edu> Harrison, I see one problem, 8.3 explicitly does not include IPv6 transfers. The current policy also doesn't include ASNs either, but when ARIN-2012-3 is implemented, no later than July 31 according to the web site, that shouldn't be a problem. However, the proposal that initiated ARIN-2012-3 included IPv6 and there was significant opposition to including IPv6 in 8.3 transfers. So without some additional modification of 8.3 this policy would have the effect on eliminating IPv6 transfers completely. Also, ARIN-2011-1 and ARIN-2012-1 should be implemented in a similar time frame as ARIN-2012-3 including interRIR transfers and significant changes to 8.3 and the creation of 8.4. A couple suggestion first, rather than renumber 8.3 to 8.2 could I suggest you just delete 8.2 and we can put "[Section Number Retired]" in its place. Please consider if the changes to section 8.3 and the addition of 8.4 with the pending implementation of the policies above change your assessment of the situation. While I think you have a valid point, but I'm not sure liberalizing transfers for IPv6 will be a idea that gets consensus. Are there changes to 8.2 that would clarify when it should be used verses 8.3 that could accomplish the stated goal? On 6/20/12 08:12 CDT, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 > > Proposal Originator: Harrison Grundy > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Date: 20 June 2012 > > Proposal Type: Modify > > Policy Term: Permanent > > Policy Statement: > > Delete section 8.2, and renumber section 8.3 to 8.2, > > Add language to the new Section 8.2 (Transfers to Specified Recipients): > > "ARIN will provisionally update the registry to reflect the transfer > request initiated by the resource holder pending ARIN's approval or > rejection of the transfer. If the transfer is rejected, ARIN will update > the registry to reflect the original resource holder." > > Rationale: > > Transfers due to mergers and acquisitions should follow the same process > as any directed transfer. Current language in the NRPM is silent on the > status of those resources as it relates to RSAs, while requiring that > the number resources of the merged organisations comply with ARIN's > policies. This situation is needlessly confusing, and serves only to > create a legal grey area for these resources. > > There is also no clear delineation on when an entity may elect to > perform an 8.2 transfer over an 8.3 transfer, beyond the requirement > that "the new entity has acquired assets that used the transferred > resources from the current registrant". Purchasing a single router from > an entity should not magically transform what is otherwise a transfer to > a specified recipient into a special transfer that does not carry the > requirements of an 8.3 transfer. The text of 8.2 would also appear to > preclude transferring resources that are not currently in use. > > This policy proposal serves to homogenise transfer requirements so that > there is one simple method of transfer, regardless of the business > circumstances surrounding that transaction. > > By immediately updating the registry upon receiving a request, > renumbering pain as part of M&A transactions will only occur where the > resources will not be used for their already approved purpose. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From cengel at conxeo.com Wed Jun 20 13:04:22 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:04:22 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > [Milton L Mueller] It's very good that you understand the distinction > between what ARIN's legal rights are and what good policy would be. Those > who believe that ARIN should not record legacy transfers need to tell us > what the policy rationale is. What good does such a refusal do? What harms > might come of it? That would be an intelligent topic to discuss. If your > concept of "doing good" means: "I hate those f**ing legacy holders and think > they should be punished for not playing our 8.3 game" or "I want to punish > people who make money from IP address trades," I suggest that this is not a > constructive policy. My main contention is that if a "needs requirement" is a good/necessary thing for 8.3 transfers for non-legacy blocks then it's also probably a good/necessary thing for legacy blocks as well. Conversely, if waiving a "needs requirement" is a beneficial thing for the interests of the community as a whole in regards transfers of legacy blocks then it probably would be a beneficial thing to waive for transfers of non-legacy blocks as well. I see nothing fundamentally different about the nature of the address blocks themselves that would dictate a difference in the way transfers be handled for them. In practical terms, organizations may occasionally need to carve out special exceptions to treat certain cases different in order to get sufficient buy in to get a policy passed....just like legislators sometimes find themselves having to make compromises or exceptions for special interests in order to get certain laws passed. However such a practice doesn't necessarly make for good policy or good law. I believe such special exceptions should be avoided if at all possible. Christopher Engel From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 13:17:10 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:17:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Chris Engel wrote: > ... > In practical terms, organizations may occasionally need to carve out special exceptions to treat certain cases different in order to get sufficient buy in to get a policy passed....just like legislators sometimes find themselves having to make compromises or exceptions for special interests in order to get certain laws passed. However such a practice doesn't necessarly make for good policy or good law. I believe such special exceptions should be avoided if at all possible. FYI - We've done this with fees for legacy resource holders but haven't done it with policies as of this date. The community can decide to have special policies for legacy resource holders if desired, subject to the risks you've noted above. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From astrodog at gmx.com Wed Jun 20 13:19:38 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:19:38 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 In-Reply-To: <4FE1FF7A.3010003@umn.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> <4FE1FF7A.3010003@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FE2062A.6050307@gmx.com> On 06/20/2012 11:51 AM, David Farmer wrote: > Harrison, > > I see one problem, 8.3 explicitly does not include IPv6 transfers. The > current policy also doesn't include ASNs either, but when ARIN-2012-3 > is implemented, no later than July 31 according to the web site, that > shouldn't be a problem. However, the proposal that initiated > ARIN-2012-3 included IPv6 and there was significant opposition to > including IPv6 in 8.3 transfers. So without some additional > modification of 8.3 this policy would have the effect on eliminating > IPv6 transfers completely. > > Also, ARIN-2011-1 and ARIN-2012-1 should be implemented in a similar > time frame as ARIN-2012-3 including interRIR transfers and significant > changes to 8.3 and the creation of 8.4. > > A couple suggestion first, rather than renumber 8.3 to 8.2 could I > suggest you just delete 8.2 and we can put "[Section Number Retired]" > in its place. Please consider if the changes to section 8.3 and the > addition of 8.4 with the pending implementation of the policies above > change your assessment of the situation. > > While I think you have a valid point, but I'm not sure liberalizing > transfers for IPv6 will be a idea that gets consensus. Are there > changes to 8.2 that would clarify when it should be used verses 8.3 > that could accomplish the stated goal? As far as avoiding renumbering 8.3 goes, that sounds good to me. I bounced back and forth on that question when I wrote the proposal and don't have much of a preference either way. It sounds like avoiding the renumbering is the way to go. I am not sure how the IPv6 situation should be handled, as there is not a good way to prevent the transfer if it's allowed under 8.2... the selling entity simply includes some random bit of networking gear that can be claimed to be "[using] the transferred resources from the current registrant", which is verbiage I'm not a huge fan of. One option would be to create an "8.3.1", which explicitly allows IPv6 and ASN transfers in circumstances where equipment purchased from the original registrant would require re-numbering. I'm curious as to the rest of the community's thoughts on this problem. The way 8.2 is written currently, it seems to provide a relatively easy "end run" around meeting the 8.3 requirements, and without ARIN spending quite a bit of time figuring out exactly what it is someone bought, I'm not sure there's a way to tell if an equipment sale was performed to enable an 8.2 transfer or if it's just part of transferring an ongoing operation. This may be avoidable, if closing the "loophole" in 8.2 is worth liberalising IPv6 transfers. Ideally, I'd like to end up with a proposal that removes "Why are you transferring these resources?" as a factor, so that registrants can know going in exactly how a transfer will be performed, and ARIN doesn't have to try to deduce what registrants are actually intending to do. --- Harrison From astrodog at gmx.com Wed Jun 20 13:22:16 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FE206C8.7060402@gmx.com> On 06/20/2012 12:04 PM, Chris Engel wrote: >> [Milton L Mueller] It's very good that you understand the distinction >> between what ARIN's legal rights are and what good policy would be. Those >> who believe that ARIN should not record legacy transfers need to tell us >> what the policy rationale is. What good does such a refusal do? What harms >> might come of it? That would be an intelligent topic to discuss. If your >> concept of "doing good" means: "I hate those f**ing legacy holders and think >> they should be punished for not playing our 8.3 game" or "I want to punish >> people who make money from IP address trades," I suggest that this is not a >> constructive policy. > > My main contention is that if a "needs requirement" is a good/necessary thing for 8.3 transfers for non-legacy blocks then it's also probably a good/necessary thing for legacy blocks as well. Conversely, if waiving a "needs requirement" is a beneficial thing for the interests of the community as a whole in regards transfers of legacy blocks then it probably would be a beneficial thing to waive for transfers of non-legacy blocks as well. I see nothing fundamentally different about the nature of the address blocks themselves that would dictate a difference in the way transfers be handled for them. > [snip] Exactly my thoughts on the subject. --- Harrison From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 20 13:30:23 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:30:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > My main contention is that if a "needs requirement" is a good/necessary > thing for 8.3 transfers for non-legacy blocks then it's also probably a > good/necessary thing for legacy blocks as well. Conversely, if waiving a > "needs requirement" is a beneficial thing for the interests of the > community as a whole in regards transfers of legacy blocks then it > probably would be a beneficial thing to waive for transfers of non- > legacy blocks as well. I see nothing fundamentally different about the [Milton L Mueller] this is logical enough on its own terms. The problem is that ARIN can contractually require members under an RSA to undergo a needs assessment, and it cannot require that of legacy holders. So, are you implying that the purpose of refusing to update registration records for legacy transfers would be to discourage, or perhaps even prevent, such transfers from taking place? In other words, in the absence of a contract, use the leverage afforded by the registry update to make the legacy holder behave the way ARIN wants it to behave? I view that as creating risk without achieving much value. Legacy holders and buyers intent upon transferring resources without needs assessments will find a way to do so anyway. But refusing to update the listing causes a number of problems that affect anyone. Moreover, I fail to see what ARIN really loses by simply allowing those legacy holders to do what they want and updating its records regardless. Most transfers will still occur under 8.3. Note also that several actors in the trading space have voluntarily signed LRSAs as part of a legacy transfer, when ARIN appealed to them to do so. It is likely that many others would follow suit. What is gained by forcing the issue? From cgrundemann at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 13:58:38 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:58:38 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <34456717-72a9-4233-8c22-b059f5edf4df@email.android.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> <3D722824-981C-4137-A3B7-774455D6C74D@corp.arin.net> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D484@MAIL1.polartel.local> <34456717-72a9-4233-8c22-b059f5edf4df@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > I have a question: > > Does the community keep the registry becasue it is the authority or becasue as stewards it thinks keeping a registry is a good thing? > > If the former, it makes sense to have a set of rules that you try to enforce. ?And I think you are probably right; nothing at this point requires you to provide service to those who don't follow your rules. You probably can't stop them, but you don't have to serve them. But as you say IANL, and I do not know about any rulings or whatever, that might contradict this. > > But if it is the later, i.e. it ARIN acts as stewards in the best interests of the IPv4 Internet and registration is a good thing, then would it also be a good thing to allow for registration of transfered addresses even if the method of transfer wasn't one that fell within your approved transfer policy framework? Great question Avri, for my part I believe the latter; that keeping a registry is a good thing for stewardship of the Internet (essential in fact). As such, the registry needs certain authority and certain checks and so we have developed policies (rules) over time to ensure proper stewardship. These policies are not onerous, in fact, for the most part, the entire NRPM boils down to: Have technical need, keep records up to date. Both of these "rules" are good things for the Internet. Because they are good for everyone who participates in the Internet, not much enforcement has ever really been needed. In fact, spammers and people who don't actually operate networks are the only folks I see opposed to them generally. YMMV however. Cheers, ~Chris (speaking as an individual Internet user) > > thanks > > avri > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Jun 20 14:03:35 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:03:35 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D488@MAIL1.polartel.local> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:30 PM > To: Chris Engel > Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in > the Registry > > > > Moreover, I fail to see what ARIN really loses by simply allowing those > legacy holders to do what they want and updating its records regardless. > Most transfers will still occur under 8.3. Note also that several actors > in the trading space have voluntarily signed LRSAs as part of a legacy > transfer, when ARIN appealed to them to do so. It is likely that many > others would follow suit. > > What is gained by forcing the issue? > [kjk] Uniform policy compliance? Legacy allocations were assigned to the original legacy holder. If the resource is transferred to another party it should now be subject to the current in force policy. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Wed Jun 20 13:33:11 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:33:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> Message-ID: <4FE20957.5030302@burnttofu.net> On 6/19/12 2:12 PM, Morizot Timothy S wrote: >> John Curran wrote: On Jun 19, 2012, at 4:40 PM, David Farmer >> wrote: >>> On 6/19/12 15:00 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >>>>> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region >>>>> and ARIN number resource policies apply to all resources in >>>>> the ARIN registry, including those resources issued from a >>>>> predecessor registry in the Internet Registry system. >>>> >>>> I'll join the lawsuit if this policy is adopted. Oppose. >>> >>> Is the concept completely an non-starter and unreasonable? >> >> We have offered lower fees for legacy resource holders, and have >> provided them with an explicit waiver of reclamation due to lack of >> use (both of these are in the present LRSA agreement) > > It's likely the governmental and educational legacy users have a > different perspective, but I don't personally understand what's > objectionable in the LRSA. We didn't find anything in it > objectionable and signed it primarily to make the waiver John > mentions explicit rather than implicit. And before anything gets > signed here, a lot of people in procurement and other areas, often > including legal assessment, have to review it to make sure we are not > obligating the agency to anything we shouldn't be. My current employer, ESnet, a government-funded R&E network, signed the LRSA. (We also have resources covered under regular RSA.) I don't know how difficult it was, as most of it was shepherded by my predecessor, Kevin Oberman. My previous employer, UC Berkeley, has not signed the LRSA. The main issue was the difficulty of getting on the general counsel's docket to review. If there's not an immediate legal issue at hand, things seem to get shifted to the back burner. There was an effort to get a UC systemwide review of the LRSA a few years ago, and I don't know where that went. (Note that ESnet is operated as part of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab by UC as under contract with US DOE.) For me, it hasn't been an issue of dissatisfaction with the LRSA, it has been inability (and probably some laziness on my part) to get general counsel to review it when there are other legal fires to put out. michael From cengel at conxeo.com Wed Jun 20 14:46:29 2012 From: cengel at conxeo.com (Chris Engel) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:46:29 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > So, are you implying that the purpose of refusing to update registration > records for legacy transfers would be to discourage, or perhaps even > prevent, such transfers from taking place? In other words, in the absence of > a contract, use the leverage afforded by the registry update to make the > legacy holder behave the way ARIN wants it to behave? I strongly suspect, though I could be wrong, that most entities seeking to AQUIRE resources via transfer would see it in their best interests to have those transfers reflected in updates to ARIN's database in order to assure those addresses are of full use to them and thus would be likely to make accommodations for complying with policy. I mean heck, if I want address space that is not likely to be widely routed across the internet, why would I need to go out and BUY that space from anyone.....legacy holder or not.... when I can simply utilize the space for FREE? I can even do so in FULL COMPLIANCE with widely accepted internet standards just by utilizing RFC 1918 space. The address space in transfers only have real value because operators VOLUNTARILY choose to route it and that largely occurs because, de facto, ARIN's listings are considered authoritative in most cases, by most operators. Consider this, if a transfer occurred that was widely considered illegitimate, even if ARIN updated it's records to reflect the transfer...there's still no assurance that traffic would actually get ROUTED to that address across the internet. Operators could simply CHOOSE not to update their ROUTES. Even if we looked at an IP address block as some sort of virtual property. The main utility the property has is achieved by having others allow people (data packets) to walk across their yards (networks) to get to that property. There is a sort of social compact involved in that. If the property owner is obeying a fairly minimal set of understood rules, people generally agree to allow transit of their own properties, even though it imposes some burden upon them. What do you think the expected response should be if the property owner starts ignoring the social compact and the rules involved in it? P.S. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of dropping a "needs requirement" for transfers in general. For free pool assignments it clearly makes sense to me. Not so much for transfers. However if there is to be a "needs requirement", I'm really NOT in favor of it being selectively applied, simply based upon who the address holder happens to be. Christopher Engel From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 14:46:56 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:46:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <9AB5D4EA-77E0-4B3F-AED4-F487398F0090@corp.arin.net> On Jun 20, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] this is logical enough on its own terms. The problem is that ARIN can contractually require members under an RSA to undergo a needs assessment, and it cannot require that of legacy holders. Milton - If we're going to keep the discussion on what makes for good policy in the various proposals, it would be helpful if you would also refrain from "verbal assertion of authority over an issue that is legally and politically contested." i.e. In this particular case, it is clear that ARIN _can_ require any party to conform to community policy before changing the number resource registration in the registry. How that conflates with your statement above is still contested, so it would be best to instead argue for the inclusion or omission of need-basis for transfers based on its own policy merits or concerns (if we are indeed to follow your advice.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 20 15:26:46 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:26:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <9AB5D4EA-77E0-4B3F-AED4-F487398F0090@corp.arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <9AB5D4EA-77E0-4B3F-AED4-F487398F0090@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BB4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> John, > > Milton - If we're going to keep the discussion on what makes for good > policy in the various proposals, it would be helpful if you would also > refrain from "verbal assertion of authority over an issue that is > legally and politically contested." i.e. In this particular case, it is > clear that ARIN _can_ require any party to conform to community policy > before changing the number resource registration in the registry. How > that conflates with your statement above is still contested, so it would > be best to instead argue for the inclusion or omission of need-basis for > transfers based on its own policy merits or concerns (if we are indeed > to follow your advice.) > I guess you didn't read the rest of my message: [from a policy perspective, should ARIN] use the leverage afforded by the registry update to make the legacy holder behave the way ARIN wants it to behave? I view that as creating risk without achieving much value. Legacy holders and buyers intent upon transferring resources without needs assessments will find a way to do so anyway. But refusing to update the listing causes a number of problems that affect anyone. Moreover, I fail to see what ARIN really loses by simply allowing those legacy holders to do what they want and updating its records regardless. Most transfers will still occur under 8.3. Note also that several actors in the trading space have voluntarily signed LRSAs as part of a legacy transfer, when ARIN appealed to them to do so. It is likely that many others would follow suit. From jrhett at netconsonance.com Wed Jun 20 16:17:18 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:17:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: > And so it begins.... > > Can I ask you a question.... If the ARIN community decided that comcast should no longer own any IP numbers, and voted for that... Can ARIN go ahead and reclaim all of comcast's netblocks? ARIN does have that authority, does it not? I'm sorry, but can we stick to valid realities? I don't ask what would happen if bits grew a third state, or bytes started being 9 bits with warning. It ain't going to happen. Let's focus on reality. This goes back to the point I was making to Milton: what you propose requires not just a large amount of psychopaths, but a majority of psychopaths. It simply isn't going to happen. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 16:24:49 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:24:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BB4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE11E16.20109@dilkie.com> <83B7BF94-8815-49D7-B72F-A09459D6EBA9@arin.net> <4002EE32-1E1F-40E7-9CC3-CC1F1F996A7C@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B8FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BA26@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <9AB5D4EA-77E0-4B3F-AED4-F487398F0090@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218BB4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8A356361-3D07-4066-A81C-183C74C266D3@arin.net> On Jun 20, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Milton - If we're going to keep the discussion on what makes for good >> policy in the various proposals, it would be helpful if you would also >> refrain from "verbal assertion of authority over an issue that is >> legally and politically contested." i.e. In this particular case, it is >> clear that ARIN _can_ require any party to conform to community policy >> before changing the number resource registration in the registry. How >> that conflates with your statement above is still contested, so it would >> be best to instead argue for the inclusion or omission of need-basis for >> transfers based on its own policy merits or concerns (if we are indeed >> to follow your advice.) >> > > I guess you didn't read the rest of my message: I did indeed; my comment stands. > Moreover, I fail to see what ARIN really loses by simply allowing those legacy holders to do what they want and updating its records regardless. To waive the existing policies for requests from legacy holders is possible, but presumes that the goals of such policies are not worth continuing. For example, if a /16 address holder shows up and wishes to transfer their number resources into 16385 blocks of /30 each (i.e. without regard to the minimum sizes in present policy), there may be implications. If this is truly acceptable to the community, then there's likely other legacy and non-legacy who would like to operate without the minimum block constraints. Shouldn't the merits of such a situation should be discussed with due consideration of "what makes good policy" and not specifically who is making the request? FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 20 17:07:28 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:07:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > You seem to keep repeating this mantra and while I am not a lawyer, I > am curious; how does the lack of a contract give one party infinite > rights and another no rights? Hi Chris, There is no contract between myself and the Sleepy Hollow Citizens Association with respect to the use of my house. They publish my name, address and phone number in a directory and coordinate worthy activities like the neighborhood watch. When I remember, I pay the dues. Yet I have all the rights to my house. They have none. You follow? Now, some folks I know bought houses with a homeowner's association. There's a covenant (i.e. contract) attached to their deed. They signed a fresh copy when they bought the house as a condition of buying the house. Even though the house belongs to them, the contract gives the HOA specific rights with respect to the dues, exterior look of the house, etc. The HOA can even place a lien on the house and foreclose. Still following? The Nortel judge ruled that Nortel had exclusive rights to its legacy addresses. Subordinate to no one. If true (i.e. if future rulings follow the Nortel pattern), then ARIN doesn't have rights with respect to the legacy addresses. It can publish a directory. But it has no rights. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Jun 20 17:21:03 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:21:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D492@MAIL1.polartel.local> > > The Nortel judge ruled that Nortel had exclusive rights to its legacy > addresses. Subordinate to no one. If true (i.e. if future rulings > follow the Nortel pattern), then ARIN doesn't have rights with respect > to the legacy addresses. It can publish a directory. But it has no > rights. [kjk] perhaps it would be more accurate to say that ARIN "may (but might not) include the IP addresses in a directory it publishes"> [/kjk] > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From astrodog at gmx.com Wed Jun 20 17:20:12 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:20:12 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FE23E8C.4070902@gmx.com> On 06/20/2012 04:07 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Chris Grundemann > wrote: >> You seem to keep repeating this mantra and while I am not a lawyer, I >> am curious; how does the lack of a contract give one party infinite >> rights and another no rights? > Hi Chris, > > There is no contract between myself and the Sleepy Hollow Citizens > Association with respect to the use of my house. They publish my name, > address and phone number in a directory and coordinate worthy > activities like the neighborhood watch. When I remember, I pay the > dues. Yet I have all the rights to my house. They have none. You > follow? > > Now, some folks I know bought houses with a homeowner's association. > There's a covenant (i.e. contract) attached to their deed. They signed > a fresh copy when they bought the house as a condition of buying the > house. Even though the house belongs to them, the contract gives the > HOA specific rights with respect to the dues, exterior look of the > house, etc. The HOA can even place a lien on the house and foreclose. > Still following? > > The Nortel judge ruled that Nortel had exclusive rights to its legacy > addresses. Subordinate to no one. If true (i.e. if future rulings > follow the Nortel pattern), then ARIN doesn't have rights with respect > to the legacy addresses. It can publish a directory. But it has no > rights. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > To make your analogy more... analogous to the situation with ARIN... Lets say the post office won't send mail to your house unless it is listed in the directory... and lets say no one else can find your house unless it is listed in the directory... and lets say even you can't find your house from any other house using public streets unless it is listed in the directory... and lets say the directory can list some other house at your address, which will receive all of the services outline above. Such that the only route to your house involves a tunnel you have to dig between your house, and whatever other house you'd like to visit. (Which you can also do using special private houses that there can be a, for our purposes, infinite number of, but each group of them must be unique. Bear with me.) In that case, while you might own the house itself, the real value comes from being listed in the directory. Without that, the house is significantly less useful, and offers few advantages over using the special private houses. --- Harrison From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 20 17:21:26 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:21:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <4FE122A9.5050803@dilkie.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 6:08 PM, Lee Dilkie wrote: >> Can I ask you a question.... If the ARIN community decided that comcast >> should no longer own any IP numbers, and voted for that... Can ARIN go ahead >> and reclaim all of comcast's netblocks? ARIN does have that authority, does >> it not? > > I'm sorry, but can we stick to valid realities? ?I don't ask what would > happen if bits grew a third state, TCAMs. Ternary Content Addressable Memory happens when bits grow a third state. Wonderfully useful bit of networking technology. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 17:21:55 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:21:55 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:07 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Chris Grundemann > wrote: >> You seem to keep repeating this mantra and while I am not a lawyer, I >> am curious; how does the lack of a contract give one party infinite >> rights and another no rights? > > The Nortel judge ruled that Nortel had exclusive rights to its legacy > addresses. Correct, although you omitted: "...only after the sales agreement and the order were modified to noted the presence of an LRSA between ARIN and Microsoft for the specified resources"; i.e. the result is not dispositive as it was the result of consent of all involved. If you wish to continue to repeat it as a legal theory, feel free, but folks ought to know what actually happened as well. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 20 17:25:52 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:25:52 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:21 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:07 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Chris Grundemann >> wrote: >>> You seem to keep repeating this mantra and while I am not a lawyer, I >>> am curious; how does the lack of a contract give one party infinite >>> rights and another no rights? >> >> The Nortel judge ruled that Nortel had exclusive rights to its legacy >> addresses. > > Correct, although you omitted: "...only after the sales agreement and > the order were modified to noted the presence of an LRSA between ARIN > and Microsoft for the specified resources"; i.e. the result is not > dispositive as it was the result of consent of all involved. ?If you > wish to continue to repeat it as a legal theory, feel free, but folks > ought to know what actually happened as well. Hi John, My understanding is that while noting that Microsoft and ARIN had entered a contract, the final order reaffirmed that Nortel had the exclusive right to sell its addresses. Without any language suggesting subordination to ARIN. If you have a copy handy, we can go to the text and check. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 17:41:31 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:41:31 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: > My understanding is that while noting that Microsoft and ARIN had > entered a contract, the final order reaffirmed that Nortel had the > exclusive right to sell its addresses. Without any language suggesting > subordination to ARIN. If you have a copy handy, we can go to the text > and check. Bill - ARIN consented to the transfer since Microsoft qualified per policy, and did not seek anything other than acknowledgement of the existence of the LRSA which has the resources subject to community policy. We don't try to get in the way of folks; it's the exact opposite, in that we try to make sure that the policy is followed with minimum intrusiveness if possible. In this situation, that resulted in the transfer being approved, policy being followed, and resources under agreement. If you believe that it provides you a precedent for certain rights, then that is indeed your prerogative and good luck with it. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 20 17:48:59 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:48:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE23E8C.4070902@gmx.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE23E8C.4070902@gmx.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Astrodog wrote: > To make your analogy more... analogous to the situation with ARIN... > > Lets say the post office won't send mail to your house unless it is listed > in the directory... > and lets say no one else can find your house unless it is listed in the > directory... Hi Harrison, Your postal address is assigned through an odd combination of developers' whimsy and municipal government function. The developer generally picks the street name, the municipality picks the house number. The address assignment is usually free, never has a recurring cost and is effectively irrevocable once assigned. It conveys to the next owner without further oversight by the directory authority. The post office adds a zip code to the address but is required by congress to make best efforts at delivering letters without a zip code or with the wrong zip code. I like your analogy. :) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From kkargel at polartel.com Wed Jun 20 18:06:23 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:06:23 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE23E8C.4070902@gmx.com> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D494@MAIL1.polartel.local> Street addresses are certainly mutable and revocable. While not quite common, street addresses are known to change arbitrarily without the consent of the landowner. The municipality can change the house number or the street name, and zip codes have been known to be re-zoned, divided and aggregated. The difference is that if your street address is revoked, you are pretty much guaranteed you will get a different one, albeit not necessarily one you had any say in creating. I do not know of any instances where a landowner who had a street address was left without one. I know of no market that allows anyone to sell their street address to another party, especially if that party is in another location. I rather suspect that if 406 Anystreet and 405 Anystreet wanted to trade numbers it would be a painful process if possible at all. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:49 PM > To: Astrodog > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in > the Registry > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Astrodog wrote: > > To make your analogy more... analogous to the situation with ARIN... > > > > Lets say the post office won't send mail to your house unless it is > listed > > in the directory... > > and lets say no one else can find your house unless it is listed in the > > directory... > > Hi Harrison, > > Your postal address is assigned through an odd combination of > developers' whimsy and municipal government function. The developer > generally picks the street name, the municipality picks the house > number. The address assignment is usually free, never has a recurring > cost and is effectively irrevocable once assigned. It conveys to the > next owner without further oversight by the directory authority. > > The post office adds a zip code to the address but is required by > congress to make best efforts at delivering letters without a zip code > or with the wrong zip code. > > I like your analogy. :) > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jrhett at netconsonance.com Wed Jun 20 18:38:41 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:38:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 In-Reply-To: <4FE2062A.6050307@gmx.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> <4FE1FF7A.3010003@umn.edu> <4FE2062A.6050307@gmx.com> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Astrodog wrote: > I'm curious as to the rest of the community's thoughts on this problem. The way 8.2 is written currently, it seems to provide a relatively easy "end run" around meeting the 8.3 requirements, and without ARIN spending quite a bit of time figuring out exactly what it is someone bought, I'm not sure there's a way to tell if an equipment sale was performed to enable an 8.2 transfer or if it's just part of transferring an ongoing operation. I believe that John's comments about court actions on sales and transfers provide some guidance on this. I suspect that even if we pass this policy it may not pass muster with the courts. It's a tricky business. I've seen sales of all customers without the equipment. The purchaser came in and installed their own preferred platform in place at the premises. The selling corporation didn't exist once the transaction was complete. Most courts would rule that the relevant assets were transferred. I would like to hear from John, but I suspect this may be a matter where it's best to leave this as an operational situation for the ARIN staff to deal with. I don't think we can ratchet this down in policy without just making their job harder. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhett at netconsonance.com Wed Jun 20 18:40:59 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:40:59 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619195501.H42665@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: <9BF22062-64E4-42DB-B3E5-20F9BEE97D72@netconsonance.com> On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > That may well be correct, but I have yet to ever see any holder of > legacy assigned resources show a copy of an invoice, check stub, a > signed contract, or papers of any kind > that show any consideration was made to the legacy registry in > exchange for the service of creating a network number, database > entry, contact directory listing, and returning of an allocation > handle. I have, and not only that I've had to go through that process with 3 of the 5 operating registries within the last 12 months. > Let alone an agreement for an ongoing service of retaining and > maintaining that database entry or contact listing for an unspecified > period of time. It's funny, because ARIN is the only region in which this is fought. The other registries don't put up with this nonsense. You want to be listed in their registry, you play by the rules. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 20 18:47:14 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:47:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> <4FE1FF7A.3010003@umn.edu> <4FE2062A.6050307@gmx.com> Message-ID: <4FE252F2.1080103@umn.edu> On 6/20/12 17:38 CDT, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Jun 20, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Astrodog wrote: >> I'm curious as to the rest of the community's thoughts on this >> problem. The way 8.2 is written currently, it seems to provide a >> relatively easy "end run" around meeting the 8.3 requirements, and >> without ARIN spending quite a bit of time figuring out exactly what it >> is someone bought, I'm not sure there's a way to tell if an equipment >> sale was performed to enable an 8.2 transfer or if it's just part of >> transferring an ongoing operation. > > I believe that John's comments about court actions on sales and > transfers provide some guidance on this. I suspect that even if we pass > this policy it may not pass muster with the courts. > > It's a tricky business. I've seen sales of all customers without the > equipment. The purchaser came in and installed their own preferred > platform in place at the premises. The selling corporation didn't exist > once the transaction was complete. Most courts would rule that the > relevant assets were transferred. > > I would like to hear from John, but I suspect this may be a matter where > it's best to leave this as an operational situation for the ARIN staff > to deal with. I don't think we can ratchet this down in policy without > just making their job harder. Yes, we have looked at this a few times in the past. But what Harrison is suggesting is to go to a more simplified transfer process make everything 8.3. But, this mean liberalizing IPv6 transfers. Logically we could make 8.2 only apply to IPv6, but not sure what that gets us. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From jrhett at netconsonance.com Wed Jun 20 18:48:47 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:48:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE23E8C.4070902@gmx.com> Message-ID: <70FE5B16-9F65-484F-92BE-F04EE5705BFB@netconsonance.com> On Jun 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM, William Herrin wrote: > Your postal address is assigned through an odd combination of > developers' whimsy and municipal government function. The developer > generally picks the street name, the municipality picks the house > number. The address assignment is usually free, never has a recurring > cost and is effectively irrevocable once assigned. It conveys to the > next owner without further oversight by the directory authority. Great analogy! Because you chose it exactly right, but your conclusion is wrong. Re-addressing does happen, usually under the guidance of a locally elected council of peers. It doesn't happen often, but it *does* happen and the courts have repeatedly reaffirmed that you do not own your address. > The post office adds a zip code to the address but is required by > congress to make best efforts at delivering letters without a zip code > or with the wrong zip code. Wrong again. The post office has automatically and electronically rejected addresses which don't exist in the zip code for 10+ years in many areas. I personally fought a court case on that issue (because their computers were wrong and were rejecting valid mail) and lost the case because they have no such mandate. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 20 19:35:11 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:35:11 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <613598B5-0AFC-4867-BD57-3D2FD13B4507@delong.com> Let's try and be clear about what is being discussed here. The placement of addresses on devices, the interconnection of those devices, and the extent to which any person or organization controlling devices actually accepts or denies the forwarding of packets or routing information is entirely outside of the purview of ARIN for all resources. ARIN runs a registry. When John talks about transferring resources, he is not talking about the movement or use of the numbers themselves, but rather the change of association between those numbers and an ORG and/or group of POC records in the ARIN database. ARIN has absolute authority over the content of that database and must administer it within the policies set by the community. Legacy holders that have no contract with ARIN receive services from ARIN based on the good will of ARIN and the ARIN membership and within the existing policies by which ARIN runs the registry and maintains the database. Legacy holders are free to do whatever they want and ARIN has no power over the legacy holders themselves. However, ARIN does have full authority over the content of its database and the full ability to administer that database according to the community developed policies. As such, if ARIN discovers that legacy resources are being utilized by an organization other than the original registrant, policy dictates that ARIN attempt to contact the original registrant with several possible outcomes. + An 8.2 transfer process is completed + An 8.3 transfer process is completed + The original registrant keeps the resources and addresses the issue of the current hijacking through whatever mechanism(s) are appropriate. + The original registrant is unreachable or defunct in which case, ARIN should remove the registration and after an appropriate time permit a new registration to be created. + The original registrant claims to have transferred the addresses to the current user, but the current user cannot meet ARIN policy for receipt of the addresses under 8.2 or 8.3 in which case, ARIN should advise the current user and remove the registration and permit new registration after a time. + etc. Note that none of these involves ARIN directing anyone to take any particular action. Each is strictly an update to the ARIN database in accordance with ARIN policy. Owen Sent from my iPad On Jun 20, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> However, if you really do want to do something >> different with your resources (like transfer them to another party) then >> you need to get involved in the policy development process. > > [Milton L Mueller] There you go, begging the question again. This is just another unilateral, verbal assertion of authority over an issue that is legally and politically contested. > > If ARIN has no contractual authority over the legacy holder, then on what basis can it claim that the legacy holder must get its approval before it transfers them to another party? > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 20 19:45:05 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:45:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> My understanding is that while noting that Microsoft and ARIN had >> entered a contract, the final order reaffirmed that Nortel had the >> exclusive right to sell its addresses. Without any language suggesting >> subordination to ARIN. If you have a copy handy, we can go to the text >> and check. > > ?ARIN consented to the transfer since Microsoft qualified per > ?policy, and did not seek anything other than acknowledgement > ?of the existence of the LRSA which has the resources subject > ?to community policy. Hi John, Didn't seek and didn't receive. I'm told the judge let stand his ruling from the preliminary order that Nortel could sell to anyone they wanted to. Added that the court had no objection to a buyer who chose to enter a contract with ARIN. I think we probably agree about what most of the relevant case law is even if we disagree about what it means. Things like Nortel/Microsoft and Kremen. I don't suppose ARIN would be so kind as to post the documents from the relevant case law in a web archive somewhere so that anyone here can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 20 19:43:26 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:43:26 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 In-Reply-To: <4FE2062A.6050307@gmx.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> <4FE1FF7A.3010003@umn.edu> <4FE2062A.6050307@gmx.com> Message-ID: > > I am not sure how the IPv6 situation should be handled, as there is not a good way to prevent the transfer if it's allowed under 8.2... the selling entity simply includes some random bit of networking gear that can be claimed to be "[using] the transferred resources from the current registrant", which is verbiage I'm not a huge fan of. > The flaw in both this argument and your proposal is the assumption that ARIN would accept the sale of a single router as being the infrastructure justifying an entire block of addresses. Since this simply is not true, all of the conclusions based on this absurd supposition are also invalidated. Opposed as written. This is yet another attempt to move ARIN further from being a registry with policies and closer to being an auction house and an Ayn Rand free-for-all. Owen From astrodog at gmx.com Wed Jun 20 19:59:14 2012 From: astrodog at gmx.com (Astrodog) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:59:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2 In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE1CC3F.2010002@arin.net> <4FE1FF7A.3010003@umn.edu> <4FE2062A.6050307@gmx.com> Message-ID: <4FE263D2.4060503@gmx.com> On 06/20/2012 06:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I am not sure how the IPv6 situation should be handled, as there is not a good way to prevent the transfer if it's allowed under 8.2... the selling entity simply includes some random bit of networking gear that can be claimed to be "[using] the transferred resources from the current registrant", which is verbiage I'm not a huge fan of. >> > The flaw in both this argument and your proposal is the assumption that ARIN would accept the sale of a single router as being the infrastructure justifying an entire block of addresses. Since this simply is not true, all of the conclusions based on this absurd supposition are also invalidated. > > Opposed as written. This is yet another attempt to move ARIN further from being a registry with policies and closer to being an auction house and an Ayn Rand free-for-all. > > Owen > The idea behind the policy is to remove the ambiguity and put all transfers under the 8.3 criteria. An alternate way to handle this would be to have 8.2 simply read that for transactions occurring under M&A, IPv6 allocation transfer, in addition to IPv4 and ASNs, may occur subject to the same requirements as any other 8.3 transfer. In addition, it aims to clarify what happens during M&A transactions to LRSA or Legacy resources. They are treated exactly the same way any other resource is handled. The current wording of 8.2 offers little guidance on what happens, which is where a lot of the contention regarding legacy addresses seems to be occurring. I don't see why there is special treatment for transfers under M&A. Asking ARIN to divine what two parties are trying to do (M&A or specified recipient) seems pointless when we can simply have one method by which addresses are transferred, regardless of why the parties are engaging in the transaction. --- Harrison From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 20 20:03:44 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:03:44 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <34456717-72a9-4233-8c22-b059f5edf4df@email.android.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> <3D722824-981C-4137-A3B7-774455D6C74D@corp.arin.net> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D484@MAIL1.polartel.local> <34456717-72a9-4233-8c22-b059f5edf4df@email.android.com> Message-ID: <6314D9D1-0220-477B-B884-50AF96EE4C78@delong.com> On Jun 20, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the clear explanation of this point of view. As a legacy holder I appreciate it. > (oh and thanks to all those who gave me advice on how to get my /24 routed, I will try again) > > I have a question: > > Does the community keep the registry becasue it is the authority or becasue as stewards it thinks keeping a registry is a good thing? > > If the former, it makes sense to have a set of rules that you try to enforce. And I think you are probably right; nothing at this point requires you to provide service to those who don't follow your rules. You probably can't stop them, but you don't have to serve them. But as you say IANL, and I do not know about any rulings or whatever, that might contradict this. > > But if it is the later, i.e. it ARIN acts as stewards in the best interests of the IPv4 Internet and registration is a good thing, then would it also be a good thing to allow for registration of transfered addresses even if the method of transfer wasn't one that fell within your approved transfer policy framework? > I believe it is the latter, but I also believe it would be absolutely contrary to running a useful registry to do so in a manner which was not consistent with the rules of registration for that registry. In reality, it is very easy for legacy holders to comply with the registry requirements in conducting a transfer, so long as the recipient can show a documented need for the resources being transferred. It is not unreasonable for the community to require that the recipient of resources, whether from the registry free pool or from another source show documented need for those resources. Removing that requirement invites fundamental changes to the internet that benefit a few at the expense of many. Owen > thanks > > avri > > > Kevin Kargel wrote: > >> >> >> Please bear with me here as I want to make sure I understand what is >> going >> on. >> >> I believe that pretty much everybody supports the legacy holders and >> their >> ability to maintain and use the IPv4 address space that was assigned to >> them >> pre-ARIN. Nobody (that I am aware of) is trying to invalidate that >> assignment or reclaim the space from the original assignees. >> >> These assignments, were (IMHO) just that, assignments, not gifts or >> grants >> or deeds or titles. >> >> Please educate me if any of my assertions above are incorrect or >> invalid. >> >> What I am seeing from the community is that if the original assignees >> want >> to transfer the assignment to another party then the community asserts >> that >> the transfer should comply with current in force policy. It is >> possible I >> am not completely understanding this point. >> >> If you look through past communications I have often tried to act as a >> champion of legacy holders and I will continue to do so in the future. >> I am >> not now a legacy holder. I will vigorously oppose any action that tries >> to >> invalidate any original and legitimate assignment of space to the user >> it >> was originally assigned to. >> >> I think there are several red herrings being chased up tributaries in >> an >> attempt to undermine ARIN or otherwise cause chaos. I suspect that the >> motivation has little to do with the actual issues being discussed. >> >> I am firmly convinced that if a "legacy holder" wants to work with ARIN >> to >> straighten out records ARIN will go above and beyond the call to make >> things >> right and protect the assignment as originally created so that the >> networks >> involved operate as seamlessly as possible. >> This would be a no risk effort for the legacy holder, as that if it >> doesn't >> pan out they could walk away and be right where they started and out >> only >> the effort of trying. >> >> Thanks to all and I apologize if this wasted anyone's time. I truly >> hope it >> does not muddy the waters further. >> >> Kevin Kargel >> (personal assertions only) >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 20:13:33 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:13:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 7:45 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> ARIN consented to the transfer since Microsoft qualified per >> policy, and did not seek anything other than acknowledgement >> of the existence of the LRSA which has the resources subject >> to community policy. > > Hi John, > > Didn't seek and didn't receive. I'm told the judge let stand his > ruling from the preliminary order that Nortel could sell to anyone > they wanted to. Bill - Nortel and Microsoft signed the Amended Purchase Agreement which was approved by the court and stated: "Other than entry into the LRSA, no Consent from ARIN or any other regional internet registry is required for the purchase of Seller?s Rights hereunder." Entry into a registration services agreement by anyone purchasing would have similarly been required to approve another sale. If you wish to review the documents in this matter again, the access instructions in last years email on this topic are attached. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Subject: [arin-ppml] References to NNI court documents > Date: December 7, 2011 4:38:24 PM EST > To: Martin Hannigan > Cc: ARIN PPML > > On Dec 7, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> >>>> Why don't we just go back to the court documents and reference where >>>> each have said 'while we don't necessarily need to deal with ARIN' >>> >>> Incorrect. >>> >>> In Nortel, the actual court document was approved only with affirmation >>> that the recipient had entered into a registration services agreement >>> with ARIN. See prior posting to Mike for the specific references. >> >> John, >> >> I encourage you to provide a cite to a specific line in the document >> that affirms your statement. We can agree to disagree for now. > > Martin - > > The court documents I cited are part of the public file, and therefore > can be readily confirmed by anyone. However, for avoidance of doubt, > please find directions for access and references to the nearest page. > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > === http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx?RelatedID=290578 - All Documents are all under Docket # 5252. > > --- In Document A (Amended Purchase Agreement), top of page 14 - > "SECTION 3.5 LRSA. > The Purchaser has, or prior to the date of the hearing to consider and approve the Sale Order will have, entered into the LRSA. Other than entry into the LRSA, no Consent from ARIN or any other regional internet registry is required for the purchase of Seller?s Rights hereunder. " > > --- In Document A (Amended Purchase Agreement), botton of page 23 - > "SECTION 7.2 Conditions to Seller?s Obligation. > 7.2.1 The Seller?s obligation to effect the Closing shall be subject to the fulfillment (or express written waiver by the Seller), at or prior to the Closing, of each of the following conditions: ... > (e) LRSA. Purchaser shall have entered into the LRSA with ARIN." > > --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), bottom of page 4 - > " I. Purchaser has represented that it has entered into a Legacy Registration Services Agreement with ARIN with respect to the Internet Numbers (the ?LRSA?)." > > --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), top of page 5 - > "K. The Purchaser would not have entered into the Agreement and would not consummate the Transaction if the sale, transfer and assignment of the Seller?s Rights in and to the Internet Numbers to the Purchaser was not free and clear of all Interests, pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, subject to the terms of the LRSA. " > > --- In Document B (Revised Proposed Order), middle of page 8 - > "5. For the avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA and the Purchaser?s rights in the Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to this Order shall be subject to the terms of the LRSA." > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 20 20:21:46 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:21:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46377E9C-6E78-4146-9282-BF41D9C5BD63@delong.com> On Jun 20, 2012, at 2:07 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Chris Grundemann > wrote: >> You seem to keep repeating this mantra and while I am not a lawyer, I >> am curious; how does the lack of a contract give one party infinite >> rights and another no rights? > > Hi Chris, > > There is no contract between myself and the Sleepy Hollow Citizens > Association with respect to the use of my house. They publish my name, > address and phone number in a directory and coordinate worthy > activities like the neighborhood watch. When I remember, I pay the > dues. Yet I have all the rights to my house. They have none. You > follow? Incorrect analogy. First, since you (occasionally) pay the dues, you have a contract. It may not be written or explicit, but there is at least an implied contract. (You expect and they intend to publish said directory (meeting of the minds) and you have paid them to do so (consideration)). Second, the contract is not for the use of your home, it is for their publication of your data in their directory. If you were not paying them and truly had no contract, you would absolutely have no right and they would have no obligation with regards to what they published or did not publish in their directory being to your liking. > > Now, some folks I know bought houses with a homeowner's association. > There's a covenant (i.e. contract) attached to their deed. They signed > a fresh copy when they bought the house as a condition of buying the > house. Even though the house belongs to them, the contract gives the > HOA specific rights with respect to the dues, exterior look of the > house, etc. The HOA can even place a lien on the house and foreclose. > Still following? > Yep. > The Nortel judge ruled that Nortel had exclusive rights to its legacy > addresses. Subordinate to no one. If true (i.e. if future rulings > follow the Nortel pattern), then ARIN doesn't have rights with respect > to the legacy addresses. It can publish a directory. But it has no > rights. The question is whether Nortel has exclusive rights to dictate the contents of the ARIN directory with respect to numbers which match what the judge claims they had exclusive rights to. I'm willing to bet that I could identify other users of those same numbers in other contexts which do not violate the judges intent while they are actually in conflict with any alleged exclusive right to some set of numbers. Bottom line, nobody has exclusive rights to numbers. It's akin to saying someone has exclusive rights to breathing air. So, let's look at who controls what gets put in the registry records and recognize that all ARIN policy applies only to that and has little if any control even over how others use that data. In that context, absent an RSA of some form, ARIN has no legal obligation to protect any given legacy registration. Nonetheless, it would be very bad policy for ARIN to delete such registrations without cause and I would not support policy to do so. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 20 20:28:46 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:28:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FE23E8C.4070902@gmx.com> Message-ID: <8AD7B3F8-9312-4E2D-B543-287CF8E24BF4@delong.com> On Jun 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Astrodog wrote: >> To make your analogy more... analogous to the situation with ARIN... >> >> Lets say the post office won't send mail to your house unless it is listed >> in the directory... >> and lets say no one else can find your house unless it is listed in the >> directory... > > Hi Harrison, > > Your postal address is assigned through an odd combination of > developers' whimsy and municipal government function. The developer > generally picks the street name, the municipality picks the house > number. The address assignment is usually free, never has a recurring > cost and is effectively irrevocable once assigned. It conveys to the > next owner without further oversight by the directory authority. Patently false. 1. Streets do occasionally get renumbered and when that happens, your old house number is, in fact revoked and you are issued a new one. 2. Streets do occasionally get renamed. IBID. 3. The address assignment is, in fact only sort of free if you don't consider the deed recording cost a factor. Personally, I believe that since part of the deed recording fees cover maintenance of the registry, it is, in part, a fee for the address registration. 4. The address does not convey to the next owner without oversight by the directory authority. That is what the combination of deed recording, title insurance, etc. are. They are oversight by the registry authority. Nice try, but Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing. Owen From jrhett at netconsonance.com Wed Jun 20 20:39:28 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:39:28 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <6314D9D1-0220-477B-B884-50AF96EE4C78@delong.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619175142.T42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D60@lb3ex01> <3D722824-981C-4137-A3B7-774455D6C74D@corp.arin.net> <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D484@MAIL1.polartel.local> <34456717-72a9-4233-8c22-b059f5edf4df@email.android.com> <6314D9D1-0220-477B-B884-50AF96EE4C78@delong.com> Message-ID: <2EB290DC-0001-49B1-A477-FDA9BAF423D6@netconsonance.com> On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > In reality, it is very easy for legacy holders to comply with the registry requirements in conducting a transfer Indeed. Having been through this process several times, we have wasted more hours in this debate in this week alone than it takes to justify even a very large IP block. No reasonable business with a legitimate use is going to waste hours in court or by divisive use of the Internet, compared to spending a small count of hours providing the necessary documentation. This storm is so so so much bigger than the worst effect of the policies. And funny enough, this storm won't die. People keep arguing this pointless, dead, irrelevant topic. irrelevant == if you actually have a business to run, and other things to do in your day -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fearghas at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 20:42:44 2012 From: fearghas at gmail.com (Fearghas McKay) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:42:44 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <9BF22062-64E4-42DB-B3E5-20F9BEE97D72@netconsonance.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619195501.H42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <9BF22062-64E4-42DB-B3E5-20F9BEE97D72@netconsonance.com> Message-ID: On 20 Jun 2012, at 23:40, Jo Rhett wrote: > It's funny, because ARIN is the only region in which this is fought. The other registries don't put up with this nonsense. You want to be listed in their registry, you play by the rules. There is a a similar debate going on in the RIPE NCC region but not as publicly as on the PPML. f From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 21:29:25 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:29:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619195501.H42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <9BF22062-64E4-42DB-B3E5-20F9BEE97D72@netconsonance.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > On 20 Jun 2012, at 23:40, Jo Rhett wrote: > >> It's funny, because ARIN is the only region in which this is fought. The other registries don't put up with this nonsense. You want to be listed in their registry, you play by the rules. > > There is a a similar debate going on in the RIPE NCC region but not as publicly as on the PPML. There is probably a graduate thesis in evaluating whether the public debate on PPML is a strength or weakness of the ARIN region compared to some others :-) From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Jun 20 21:48:22 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:48:22 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) Message-ID: <20120620184822.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.bd994c2512.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Didn't seek and didn't receive. I'm told the judge let stand his ruling from the preliminary order that Nortel could sell to anyone they wanted to. Added that the court had no objection to a buyer who chose to enter a contract with ARIN. I think we probably agree about what most of the relevant case law is even if we disagree about what it means. Things like Nortel/Microsoft and Kremen. I don't suppose ARIN would be so kind as to post the documents from the relevant case law in a web archive somewhere so that anyone here can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ IPv4 Friends, The entire Nortel motion and the bankruptcy court ruling may be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51547565/Nortel-s-Chapter-11-Motion-for-the-Sale-of-Internet-Numbers In his ruling, the Honorable Kevin Gross, in point L, says that "The Internet Numbers are property of the Seller's bankruptcy estate. No consents or approvals are required for the Seller to enter into the Agreement, to transfer the Internet Numbers to the Purchaser, or to consummate the Transaction other than entry of this Order and as set forth in the Agreement...." I believe Mr Gross does not implicitly or explicitly refer to the internet community, support for internet socialism, agreement that an LRSA is needed, or any other such pre-steps anywhere in his decision but please read the entire document for yourself and draw your own conclusions, and do not be distracted by opinions other than those of your own legal counsel. Sandra Brown From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Jun 20 21:41:02 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:41:02 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) Message-ID: <20120620184102.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.b0bb8feaa5.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Didn't seek and didn't receive. I'm told the judge let stand his ruling from the preliminary order that Nortel could sell to anyone they wanted to. Added that the court had no objection to a buyer who chose to enter a contract with ARIN. I think we probably agree about what most of the relevant case law is even if we disagree about what it means. Things like Nortel/Microsoft and Kremen. I don't suppose ARIN would be so kind as to post the documents from the relevant case law in a web archive somewhere so that anyone here can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ IPv4 Friends, The entire Nortel motion and the bankruptcy court ruling may be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51547565/Nortel-s-Chapter-11-Motion-for-the-Sale-of-Internet-Numbers In his ruling, the Honorable Kevin Gross, in point L, says that "The Internet Numbers are property of the Seller's bankruptcy estate. No consents or approvals are required for the Seller to enter into the Agreement, to transfer the Internet Numbers to the Purchaser, or to consummate the Transaction other than entry of this Order and as set forth in the Agreement...." I believe Mr Gross does not implicitly or explicitly refer to the internet community, support for internet socialism, agreement that an LRSA is needed, orany other such pre-steps anywhere in his decision but please read the entire document for yourself and draw your own conclusions, and do not be distracted by . Sandra Brown From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 20 22:00:45 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 02:00:45 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) In-Reply-To: <20120620184102.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.b0bb8feaa5.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120620184102.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.b0bb8feaa5.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <6B092724-4E76-4A45-8A2B-787BD759FCD0@corp.arin.net> On Jun 20, 2012, at 9:41 PM, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > > IPv4 Friends, > The entire Nortel motion and the bankruptcy court ruling may be found at: > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/51547565/Nortel-s-Chapter-11-Motion-for-the-Sale-of-Internet-Numbers Actually, that is only the sellers original motion for sale, original Sale Agreement and related attachments. One would likely want to also review the revised ones from the bankruptcy docket as that was what was actually approved... FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Wed Jun 20 22:01:49 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:01:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <9BF22062-64E4-42DB-B3E5-20F9BEE97D72@netconsonance.com> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619195501.H42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <9BF22062-64E4-42DB-B3E5-20F9BEE97D72@netconsonance.com> Message-ID: <4FE2808D.5000405@umn.edu> On 6/20/12 17:40 CDT, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: >> That may well be correct, but I have yet to ever see any holder of >> legacy assigned resources show a copy of an invoice, check stub, a >> signed contract, or papers of any kind >> that show any consideration was made to the legacy registry in >> exchange for the service of creating a network number, database >> entry, contact directory listing, and returning of an allocation >> handle. > > I have, and not only that I've had to go through that process with 3 of > the 5 operating registries within the last 12 months. > >> Let alone an agreement for an ongoing service of retaining and >> maintaining that database entry or contact listing for an unspecified >> period of time. > > It's funny, because ARIN is the only region in which this is fought. The > other registries don't put up with this nonsense. You want to be listed > in their registry, you play by the rules. APNIC has a policy, RIPE and LACNIC have info on their websites not sure if it is policy or not, I assume it is procedure at least. I couldn't find anything for AfriNIC, anyone have a pointer for them? http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space/legacy-space-faqs http://lacnic.net/en/legacy-r.html I will point out that ARIN has many more Legacy registration than the other RIRs, I think many more than all the other RIRs combined. The central registry handled registration for North America for a longer period of time, especially during the crazy growth of the mid '90s, and there was more early growth in North America too. RIPE and APNIC started up during the mid '90s and prompted the creation of the RIR system. In some ways ARIN was late to the party. I don't think forcing Legacy holders to sign contracts is a good things, it doesn't build trust of the Legacy Resource holders. The LRSA should continue to be offered and especially large legacy resource holders that expect to keep using their resources should consider signing one. Continually threatening to recover and/or audit resources is counter productive and also doesn't build trust, in fact it is corrosive to trust. Don't take the bait. ARIN is only effective if it the has the trust of all resource holders. However, there is a minority of legacy resource holders and possibly a few consumers of resources (I'm not sure on that one) that want to leverage the lack of contracts into the idea that legacy resource holders don't have to follow any rules, this is equally corrosive to trust in the other direction. Milton has been saying this is a game of chicken, the more I think about it, there is a way more complicated game theory model going on here, if game theory even actually applies, as there are external players in the game like judges, and many many players. So, I'm not sure what it is, but it not the simple two player game of chicken. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jun 20 23:06:37 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:06:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) In-Reply-To: <6B092724-4E76-4A45-8A2B-787BD759FCD0@corp.arin.net> References: <20120620184102.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.b0bb8feaa5.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <6B092724-4E76-4A45-8A2B-787BD759FCD0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: John, Can you clairfy? Documents related to Nortel or documents related to the buyer? Best, -M< On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 20, 2012, at 9:41 PM, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: >> >> IPv4 Friends, >> The entire Nortel motion and the bankruptcy court ruling may be found at: >> >> http://www.scribd.com/doc/51547565/Nortel-s-Chapter-11-Motion-for-the-Sale-of-Internet-Numbers > > Actually, that is only the sellers original motion for sale, > original Sale Agreement and related attachments. ?One would > likely want to also review the revised ones from the bankruptcy > docket as that was what was actually approved... > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Jun 20 23:19:03 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:19:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) Message-ID: <20120620201903.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.16d9f126b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Jun 20 23:30:13 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:30:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin theRegistry (William Herrin) Message-ID: <20120620203013.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.67e8e0eed4.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Jun 20 23:31:44 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:31:44 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin theRegistry (William Herrin) Message-ID: <20120620203144.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.33d3944745.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> The Final Court Documents are published at http://dm.epiq11.com/NNI/Docket#Debtors=2414&RelatedDocketId=&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1 It is document 5315 and dated 04/26/2011. In the final ruling, point G, "The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers. Such exclusive rights to use and transfer, together with Seller's other legal and equitable right in and to thet Internet Numbers, if any, are referred to herein collectively as the "Seller's Rights". As John said, it notes in point I that the purchaser entered into an LRSA. Please note in the Asset Purchase Agreement at http://www.scribd.com/doc/51547565/Nortel-s-Chapter-11-Motion-for-the-Sale-of-Internet-Numbers that there is a reference to updating the POC but there is no mention or dependence on signing of an LRSA. Sandra Brown From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 20 23:54:26 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:54:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > On Jun 20, 2012, at 7:45 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> I don't suppose ARIN would be so kind as to post the >> documents from the relevant case law in a web archive >> somewhere so that anyone here can read it for >> themselves and draw their own conclusions? Thanks John and I apologize for my abrasive phrasing. Let me pull out and emphasize the fantastic URL you offered: http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx?RelatedID=290578 If you then search the docket text for "sale of internet" you'll find docket 5315, "Order (i) Authorizing And Approving The Sale Of Internet Numbers [...]". "It is hereby found and determined that. [...] G. The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers." >From what I've read, "exclusive right" is legalese with a strongly precedented meaning. Wikipedia talks about it briefly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:13 PM, John Curran wrote: > Nortel and Microsoft signed the Amended Purchase Agreement which was > approved by the court and stated: > > "Other than entry into the LRSA, no Consent from ARIN or any other > regional internet registry is required for the purchase of Seller?s > Rights hereunder." That's a very pretty turn of phrase. But it's a statement by the purchaser, by Microsoft. Not by the court. Moreover, it's very interestingly phrased as a negation: it doesn't even say "Purchaser has signed an LRSA as required." It actually says, "Everybody consenting to this agreement stipulates that nothing else is required." As long as we're tossing around legal quotes *not* from a judge, allow me to offer this one from a deposition of the President and CEO of ARIN. "The Court's order includes within it IP resources not issued or controlled by ARIN. [...] They were not issued by ARIN. Like other 'legacy' address holder's issued resources before ARIN began, ARIN has never had an agreement with UUNET that would give it authority over those specific resources." He went on to ask to be relieved of any duty to transfer those legacy addresses, addresses then and now reported in ARIN's whois database, since no one ever gave ARIN the authority to do so. Sound familiar? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 21 00:15:05 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:15:05 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) In-Reply-To: <20120620201903.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.16d9f126b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120620201903.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.16d9f126b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <691C91F8-67E1-4D16-A62E-9077D9866520@delong.com> Yes, but the exclusive right to use is ill-defined at best. Use requires a context. Does the judge imagine that his authority somehow enjoins all people with routers that are not party to the case? That would be a very interesting over-reaching of the judge well beyond the law as I understand it. If not, then, clearly the judge's statement is rather odd in the context of how the internet actually operates and seems more a reflection of a poor understanding of said operation than of any actual legal precedent. Owen On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:19 PM, wrote: > The Final Court Documents are published at > > http://dm.epiq11.com/NNI/Docket#Debtors=2414&EndDate=05/15/2011&RelatedDocketId=294573&StartDate=03/15/2011&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1 > > It is document 5315 and dated 04/26/2011 and you can search from http://dm.epiq11.com/NNI/Docket#Debtors=2414&RelatedDocketId=&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1 if the first link does not work. > > In the final ruling, point G, "The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers. Such exclusive rights to use and transfer, together with Seller's other legal and equitable right in and to thet Internet Numbers, if any, are referred to herein collectively as the "Seller's Rights". > > As John said, it notes in point I that the purchaser entered into an LRSA. > > Please note in the Asset Purchase Agreement at http://www.scribd.com/doc/51547565/Nortel-s-Chapter-11-Motion-for-the-Sale-of-Internet-Numbers > that there is a reference to updating the POC but there is no mention or dependence on signing of an LRSA. > > Sandra Brown > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources > in theRegistry (William Herrin) > From: John Curran > Date: Wed, June 20, 2012 10:00 pm > To: "sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com" > Cc: "" > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 9:41 PM, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > > > > IPv4 Friends, > > The entire Nortel motion and the bankruptcy court ruling may be found at: > > > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/51547565/Nortel-s-Chapter-11-Motion-for-the-Sale-of-Internet-Numbers > > Actually, that is only the sellers original motion for sale, > original Sale Agreement and related attachments. One would > likely want to also review the revised ones from the bankruptcy > docket as that was what was actually approved... > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 06:45:51 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:45:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) In-Reply-To: References: <20120620184102.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.b0bb8feaa5.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <6B092724-4E76-4A45-8A2B-787BD759FCD0@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:06 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > John, > > Can you clairfy? Documents related to Nortel or documents related to the buyer? The scribd link provided by Sandra Brown was to the documents filed by Nortel (Seller) which included their proposed motion for sale for the court to consider, the original Sale Agreement signed by Nortel and Microsoft and related attachments. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 07:37:17 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:37:17 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Bankruptcy transfers In-Reply-To: <20120620203144.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.33d3944745.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120620203144.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.33d3944745.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <65BD3C54-07DF-401A-9D96-CE849CC7F37C@corp.arin.net> On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:31 PM, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > The Final Court Documents are published at > http://dm.epiq11.com/NNI/Docket#Debtors=2414&RelatedDocketId=&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1 > It is document 5315 and dated 04/26/2011. That is just the final order document. Let's be a little more precise - Document 5315 is the final order document (04/26/2011) Document 5283 is Industry Canada's removal of their objection based on the revisions proposed by Microsoft and ARIN (04/20/2011) Document 5280 is Nortel's reply to Industry Canada's objection (04/20/2011) Document 5253 is Industry Canada's objection to the transfer (04/15/2011) Document 5252 is the proposed Revised Order and Amended Purchase Agreement redlines of same, and related documents (04/15/2011) > Please note in the Asset Purchase Agreement at > http://www.scribd.com/doc/51547565/Nortel-s-Chapter-11-Motion-for-the-Sale-of-Internet-Numbers > that there is a reference to updating the POC but there is no mention or > dependence on signing of an LRSA. Sandra - However, the actual executed Amended Purchase Agreement both references and depends on signing of an LRSA. I would agree that anyone interested in this case should please read the entire set of documents to form their own opinions based on the guidance of their own legal counsel. Regarding the meaning of the ruling, one may find Nortel's own reply (#5280) to Industry Canada's objection particularly lucid: > "8. In the Statement, Industry Canada raises two purported objections to the Proposed Transaction: (i) that the Debtors claim to have a property interest in the Internet numbers, rather than a simple right of use, and (ii) that the Debtors contend that ?legacy? numbers assigned before ARIN was established, like the Internet Numbers, are not subject to ARIN?s transfer restrictions. > > While the Debtors believe that each of those statements are correct, and are prepared to prove and defend each of those facts, in considering whether to approve the Amended Purchase Agreement and enter the Revised Order, the Court is not being asked to rule on either of these points. > > 9. First, under the Amended Sale Agreement NNI is proposing to transfer only the ?Seller?s Rights? to the Internet Numbers, defined as ?Seller?s exclusive right to use the Legacy Number Blocks, Seller?s exclusive right to transfer the Legacy Number Blocks, and any other legal and equitable rights the Seller may have in and to, the Legacy Number Blocks.? The Revised Order incorporates similar provisions. > > 10. Second, the revisions reflected in the Amended Sale Agreement and Revised Order were the result of negotiations between Microsoft, ARIN and NNI and, accordingly, ARIN?s counsel has informed NNI that it does not oppose entry of the Revised Order. " By Nortel's own filing, the Court was not being asked to rule on the Nortel's original claim of a property interest, nor Nortel's claim that legacy numbers are not subject to ARIN's transfer restrictions, as these were claims were removed from the revised filings. The Amended Sale Agreement (and Revised Order) instead only transfers Nortel's Rights; these changes were the results of negotiations between Microsoft, ARIN, and Nortel, and accordingly ARIN did not oppose entry of the revised order. Industry Canada's objection #5283 is also enlightening, even if not germane to determination of any alleged 'precedent setting nature' of this transfer. (Parties may also want to review some of the other bankruptcy cases involving IP number resources, as they have much more explicit language per Steve Ryan's BNA article; see my attached earlier email on this topic) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources > Date: June 13, 2012 12:05:01 AM EDT > To: Mike Burns > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > > On Jun 12, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > >> Nortel was found to have exclusive right to transfer addresses allocated to another company, say Bay Networks, which was acquired by Nortel. >> So presumably Bay Networks, the original registrant, had some right to transfer blocks to Nortel without ARIN's involvement. From the judge's order: >> ??The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet >> Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive >> right to use the Internet Numbers." > > Mike - There have been several bankruptcy cases involving transfers of IPv4 > addresses (you can find several listed on slide 3 of my recent "Update on IPv4 > Transfers" presentation at NANOG 55 - http://teamarin.net/event/nanog-55/) > ARIN processed these transfers because they met the policy for IPv4 transfers > as set by the community. > >> Again from the judge :??The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet >> Numbers and the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive >> right to use the Internet Numbers." > > The original sale order would have transferred Nortel's rights and interests > "free and clear" to Microsoft. ARIN filed an objection with the court, and > the parties were able to work out an amended sale and court order which was > satisfactory. The parties (Nortel and Microsoft) jointed submitted a revised > sales order that said the addresses "will be placed under a registration > services agreement (LRSA) between ARIN and Microsoft", and draft court order > that read "For avoidance of doubt, this Order shall not affect the LRSA and > Purchaser's rights in Internet Numbers transferred pursuant to this Order shall > be subject to the terms of the LRSA". ARIN found such that requirement to be > sufficient to provide for the necessary compliance with the community policy. > > You will find even more precise language in all of the subsequent bankruptcy > court orders, e.g. in the case of the Borders transfer - > > " F. Other Provisions. > > 14. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, including, without limitation, paragraphs J, 3-8, 11 and 16, hereof, (i) the IA Sale, as stated in the Agreements, is conditioned upon ARIN?s consent including any terms and/or conditions established by ARIN?s transfer policies or any other policies, guidelines, or regulations developed by ARIN and published on its website, as may be amended and supplemented from time to time (collectively, ?ARIN?s Policies?), (ii) the transfer of the Debtors? interests in the Internet Addresses to the Purchaser is subject to ARIN?s Policies, (iii) the Debtors and the Purchaser are required to comply with ARIN?s Policies before any transfer of the Debtors? rights in the Internet Addresses may be effectuated.; (iv) ARIN is not required to take any action in violation of ARIN?s Policies in connection with or as a consequence of this Order, the IA Sale, or the Agreements, nor shall ARIN be required to apply a different standard to the transfer of the Internet Addresses than it does to the transfer of non-legacy Internet Protocol numbers. Nothing in this Order is intended, nor shall be construed, as exempting the Debtors and Purchaser from complying with the ARIN Policies. Subject to the conditions set forth in this paragraph, ARIN has approved of the transfer as contemplated herein and shall take reasonable steps to provide assistance for the transfer as contemplated in this Order. " > > On the other hand, you already knew of both of these cases, and neither of > them are the result of parties which ended up in disagreement (which is most > likely when these matters will really be decided with far more certainty) > >> And where is your documentation or supporting law to assert that ARIN's post-hoc policies apply to legacy addresses? >> As far a my documentation or case law, >> ... > > It's quite interesting; we've already agreed that these matters are likely > to decided in courts, and yet you continue to try and argue legal positions > on this mailing list in advance of that event. > > ARIN is highly likely to be a party in such proceedings, and hence must decline > to participate in publicly outlining our legal strategy for obvious reasons. > (It would be really nice to get this settled, but that obviously takes more > than just ARIN...) > > Today we have an active IPv4 transfer market, and this includes an ever-growing > list of bankruptcy-related transfers completed where the address holders and > service providers involved simply followed the policies set by the community > for IPv4 specified transfers. It is "running code" and has become rather > well-understood, including facilitators to help parties with their requests. > I expect to see this significantly increase over time, and soon include some > transfers to parties in other regions per recently adopted policy changes. > > Discussion of further changes to policies is quite welcome and it would be good > if we could get back to that - you probably need to talk with someone else about > "property which is neither registration rights nor related to the operator > community's use of IP addresses", as it doesn't appear to be related to ARIN > or its mission as a registry in the management of the IP address space in the > region. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 07:40:17 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:40:17 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8BB23312-909E-4CEE-A580-F54BDA9A6BC5@arin.net> Bill - I think we've covered this before, i.e. you probably want to seek actual legal expertise rather than seeking my views on your interpretations, yes? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:54 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Jun 20, 2012, at 7:45 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> I don't suppose ARIN would be so kind as to post the >>> documents from the relevant case law in a web archive >>> somewhere so that anyone here can read it for >>> themselves and draw their own conclusions? > > Thanks John and I apologize for my abrasive phrasing. Let me pull out > and emphasize the fantastic URL you offered: > > http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/NNI/docket/Default.aspx?RelatedID=290578 > > If you then search the docket text for "sale of internet" you'll find > docket 5315, "Order (i) Authorizing And Approving The Sale Of Internet > Numbers [...]". > > "It is hereby found and determined that. > [...] > G. The Seller has the exclusive right to use the Internet Numbers and > the exclusive right to transfer its exclusive right to use the > Internet Numbers." > >> From what I've read, "exclusive right" is legalese with a strongly > precedented meaning. Wikipedia talks about it briefly here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right > > ... From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 21 13:09:54 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:09:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <8BB23312-909E-4CEE-A580-F54BDA9A6BC5@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8BB23312-909E-4CEE-A580-F54BDA9A6BC5@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:40 AM, John Curran wrote: > ?I think we've covered this before, i.e. you probably want to > ?seek actual legal expertise rather than seeking my views > ?on your interpretations, yes? Hi John, I think I described at the outset of this conversation the conditions under which I would escalate. For now, ARIN has neither entered the disputed claim in to its formal documents nor to my knowledge taken adverse action reliant on the disputed claim. So for now we're merely having a public debate on proposal 174. If you'll recall from the PDP, "The ARIN Board of Trustees adopts draft policies [...] if the draft policies are consistent with [...] the applicable laws and regulations." What with these being "common law" countries, judicial precedent *is* law. So no, if you think there's a better understanding of the plain language of the judge's order, I would like to hear it from you. The same goes for Owen or David or anyone else that has participated in this debate. Some views may be better informed than others but they're all worth hearing. IMO, prop 174 asks ARIN to wake a sleeping giant. I don't think that's a winning proposition. As others in this forum consider their consent or objection to the proposal, I'd like them to know what leads me to the belief that it's a really poor idea. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 21 13:15:57 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:15:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) In-Reply-To: <691C91F8-67E1-4D16-A62E-9077D9866520@delong.com> References: <20120620201903.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.16d9f126b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <691C91F8-67E1-4D16-A62E-9077D9866520@delong.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Yes, but the exclusive right to use is ill-defined at best. Use requires a > context. Hi Owen, I think you're seeing ambiguity where there is none but if I'm wrong a future case will surely clarify it. In the mean time I think it relatively safe to presume the scope at least includes use in networks touching the public Internet. Do you think the judge intended a more narrow scope? Is there some part of the debate which hinges on the judge intending a wider scope? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 13:27:04 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:27:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B0E3@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6E179FA0-5FC3-460C-8196-47C63D524F3E@corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B2EA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1688F692-C606-4956-92BF-BD2BC42341D0@arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B81E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8BB23312-909E-4CEE-A580-F54BDA9A6BC5@arin.net> Message-ID: <3DCEE922-7922-4504-AC37-AB5441B73D98@arin.net> On Jun 21, 2012, at 1:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:40 AM, John Curran wrote: >> I think we've covered this before, i.e. you probably want to >> seek actual legal expertise rather than seeking my views >> on your interpretations, yes? > > ... > So for now we're merely having a public debate on proposal 174. Most excellent. > If you'll recall from the PDP, "The ARIN Board of Trustees adopts > draft policies [...] if the draft policies are consistent with [...] > the applicable laws and regulations." What with these being "common > law" countries, judicial precedent *is* law. So no, if you think > there's a better understanding of the plain language of the judge's > order, I would like to hear it from you. The same goes for Owen or > David or anyone else that has participated in this debate. Some views > may be better informed than others but they're all worth hearing. Indeed. Note that ARIN's legal views on compliance with law will be in the staff and legal review for policy, as usual. > IMO, prop 174 asks ARIN to wake a sleeping giant. I don't think that's > a winning proposition. As others in this forum consider their consent > or objection to the proposal, I'd like them to know what leads me to > the belief that it's a really poor idea. As I already noted, ARIN already applies number resource policies "to all resources in the ARIN registry, including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the Internet Registry system." The definition of Regional Internet Registry in NRPM 2.2 implies as much through the management of the address space in the region (although I concur that prop-174 adds clarity): "The primary role of RIRs is to manage and distribute public Internet address space within their respective regions." If indeed policy proposal 174 is not appropriate, it might be good to go back and revisit the Regional Internet Registry definition as well. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Jun 21 15:41:51 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:41:51 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> <3E9C1278-DDC0-43B3-94D4-3142ACF6757E@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D0CD0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I have only been a full-fledged member of this community for a couple of months. This is the first post I have ever made to this community forum. It has been very interesting reading all of the email generated by this community on various subjects. I am not sure what all of the "rules" are that have been set up before me, but if one does not already exist, I would ask that one be set up that states that all submissions be of a clear constructive nature and be in a constructive format - and provide the reason(s) why a member advocates a particular position or change plus the benefit to all. Certainly some submissions do exactly this but some do not and the ones that do not are mostly a waste of everyone's time for anyone who cares to follow this community. I am also one of those rebellious "Legacy" Internet Address holders as I got a /24 for myself on 3/14/1994. At that time I routinely got Class C Internet addresses assigned for my clients. I'm guessing that over the years there have been probably tens of thousands of emails concerning "Legacy" IP Block holders and blocks submitted in this community. I don't expect that my little email will change much but I'll throw my two cents in and see if anybody is interested. I have always thought that my little Class C address block had value even in the years I was not using it. I parked it at an ISP I know to hold it and they used it for their purposes when I wasn't using it. I know it actually does have value because I have had several offers to buy it - all of which I turned down. I'm guessing the value will go up as IPv4 block are further restricted by ARIN policy or a real shortage. I consider it an asset because I could make a phone call today and get a check for it. I still have all of the documentation from 1994 from the InterNIC including the application they faxed me and my submission letter and the letter they mailed me via USPS confirming my assignment of my Class C. I pulled them all out today and read them all. The application was 3 pages long and the letter they sent me back was a half of a page. Nowhere in that documentation does it say that I don't own this block and nowhere does it say I can't transfer it at will under my terms. In fact it does not mention anywhere that there is any other legal agreement of any kind that was part of the transaction of getting the block assigned to me. Therefore I read this in the broadest possible way and feel I can do anything reasonable with it if I choose to including sell it if I want. This is an unforeseen benefit of being an early Internet adopter and I feel I did my part albeit small to help the Internet grow. So here we are in 2012. I decided to build a data center providing Internet services to my customers. I called my friend up at the ISP and told him I needed my block back and installed a Metro-E line and am now using my block to service customers. I made the business decision that I needed to provide my customers with full BGP redundancy and got onto ARIN's web site and forked over the money to get my ASN number and was assigned one after I proved I needed it. I also decided that the time had come to offer my customers IPv6 and I made the business decision to fork over the money to get my IPv6 /32 block so I could do that. (I am surprised to see that the number of IPv6 blocks ARIN sells each month is only about 40 - guess I am an early adopter again or maybe they are too expensive.) It is my opinion that that the cost for the ASN number was reasonable and that the cost for the IPv6 was quite high for a company of my size. I know the IPv6 prices have been somewhat reduced to entice folks to switch from IPv4 but my opinion is still my opinion that they are too high. Lowering the cost even more might increase IPv6 utilization faster. I'm guessing the AT&T's of the world and all the other folks who have Class A addresses might not find it so high because of their deep pockets - but I did. I didn't bother to read the legalese that came along with both of these purchases as it doesn't really matter if I agree with them or not. I can't change them (as I'm too small to have any clout) and the only way I could get an ASN number and an IPv6 block from ARIN was to accept their legalese and pay their fee. It is possible that the ASN number purchase put my "Legacy" block under agreement with ARIN but since I didn't read the legalese I don't really know. I don't actually care that much if it did but if I had my druthers I would prefer to keep my little Class C in legacy status - especially if it is free to do so. I've been told that ARIN has sent out numerous letters/emails to "Legacy" holders trying to convince us to sign an agreement with ARIN. Oddly I've never received one even though my email address that IS listed with my Class C has never changed and still works. Like any sales offer, if I received a request from ARIN I would read it and make a business decision and either do it or not based on what I think the best decision is for me. Note that I tried to make a change in the company name for my block (as I changed our company name from Eclipse Computer to Eclipse Networks) and figured I'd go ahead and see if ARIN would do it. They refused unless I provided them a bunch of documentation which I tried to do but gave up. Maybe their requests were 100% reasonable and maybe they were protecting me by requiring me to provide them stuff, but, nowhere on my paperwork from the InterNIC does it say I need to get approval from ARIN and conform to their policies to make that change. For that matter, it doesn't even say I need to abide by the policies of the InterNIC either which is odd. ARIN currently has a monopoly on the IP number database for North America so if I want to be listed I am essentially forced to go thru them for both new stuff (like I just did) and old stuff which predated them. I'm not saying that is good or bad as I could easily make an argument for both. When I read all of the email going thru this community - I see very clearly that most folks are doing just that - making business decisions on what they think is best for themselves or their customers. I think doing this is part of human nature and I don't expect humans to do anything different unless they see some other good in it for them. What is very clear in the short time I have been reading submissions in this community is that there will never be a consensus on what to do with the "Legacy" holders unless the "Legacy" holders are ALL part of the process - something that is probably not possible. I have no way to tell when a comment made to this community is coming from a legacy holder or not - or a hybrid like me. It appears to make some folks in this community VERY unhappy that they/we won't all conform and agree to be under an ARIN agreement and pay the corresponding fees. Based on what I've seen in these community emails, I gather that some of those large Fortune 500 Legacy holders have chosen not to subject their very large IP blocks to ARINs authority by signing an agreement with ARIN. Assuming they got the same or similar documentation from the InterNIC (or whatever/whoever preceded them) that I did - then I don't see any legal reason they must because the documentation and the assignment letter don't mention any legal framework that these block number assignments fall under and don't address this issue at all. I'm not an attorney but I'm pretty sure that that makes the "Legacy" holders subject only to whatever is written in the application and assignment letter plus whatever applicable laws might apply to such an assignment. Congress does have the power to pass a law overriding this and dictating how this all should be done but I'm guessing those large "Legacy" holders that have deep pockets also have the political clout and lobbyists to make that difficult for ARIN to achieve - not to mention the other countries ARIN serves. Also it is quite possible that if ARIN's "community" decided to implement a significant policy that the large legacy holders severely don't like at all, like to refuse to list a large block that is sold outside of ARINs control, then they could gang up on ARIN and pool there already considerable resources and probably win (one way or another) - giving ARIN a huge black eye and thus causing ARIN to be viewed as not fully legitimate. I learned a long time ago that if elephants are tap dancing in your direction it is probably a good idea to get out of their way. I'm guessing (to pick 3 random companies for illustration purposes) that Sprint, Ford, and GE could replicate the ARIN database function separately within a month or so and that they have enough clout and friendly CEO's of other fortune 500 companies with IP blocks to create a competing registry which would be taken seriously by the rest of the Internet world because the rest of the world wants to do business with them too. In the real world these CEO's vacation together and their wives are best friends. To ignore the power of fortune 500 CEOs (and their wives) collectively is foolhardy. Each interested party has their own agenda. If I'm John Curran (and the board of directors) and I'm responsible to manage and administrate the ARIN organization then I would prefer all block holder be under a common agreement as that makes my job much easier and less costly to do and I would probably work towards that end. (That is what I see is happening.) If I'm a big "Legacy" block holder then I want to keep my costs down and free IP addresses are less costly than ones I have to pay for and unless ARIN can provide me something that offsets my costs with them and possibly makes me money - I'm not really interested in signing up with ARIN since I don't legally have to. Their Legal issues are probably greatly reduced if they don't sign an agreement also. If I'm a small "legacy" block holder (which I am), I definitely want to keep my costs down since I don't have deep pockets and free IP addresses are definitely better than paying for them. If I'm someone who has one or more ASN number and publishes my managed addresses directly on the Internet then I want to make sure whatever process is used by others to obtain their IP addresses doesn't screw me and my customers up from utilizing the Internet. Finally if I'm and end user I just want the Internet to work properly as fast and cheaply as possible. I would also add that John Curran has the fiduciary responsibility of being the ARIN CEO and surely has been advised may times by the board of directors and legal counsel on the direction they are going. When he participates in this forum his fiduciary duty is to further the ARIN mission and follow guidelines laid out by his board, his legal advisors and then this community. It is obvious to me that there are just some things he cannot or should not say in this written community as a sharp attorney somewhere will pick it up and potentially use it for their own purposes which may be at odds with ARRINs state mission. To that end I doubt he would come out and say definitively something like "ARIN has no legal right to manage the IP blocks that legacy holders have" - even if that is what he and his board and his legal advisors have concluded. Obviously most of the members of this community are not privy to what is said in private behind closed doors. I would also add that reading between the lines it appears that ARIN is striving to keep the peace with Legacy holders and provide them at least some service and that of course is positive for all - but I would add that an even more positive relationship is possible and desirable. Based on the fact that everyone involved will want to continue making the business decisions they decide is best for themselves concerning these "Legacy" blocks, I think it is prudent for ARIN to make the best of a difficult situation. The problem will slowly fix itself as IPv6 is adopted under ARIN agreements but I'm guessing that is ten years or so before IPv4 isn't needed much anymore. In the meantime, deciding to fight all of the "Legacy" holders isn't a winning proposition especially with the deep pockets and political clout out there - and the lack of a clearly enforceable agreement that has been successfully scrutinized by the courts. I see some folks advocating strongly in this community to reign in "legacy" holders - but no amount of Policies put in place by ARIN will ever solve this issue and it is futile for ARIN to create policies that a large percentage of the Internet "legacy" holders will just ignore. I would propose that instead of fighting the "Legacy" holders, why doesn't ARIN just join them. I don't know what the costs are for ARIN to conduct their mission and I don't know if the revenue they get now pays all of their bills or not. I'm sure ARIN knows by now pretty much all of the issues that are keeping the "Legacy" holders from signing up. Change the agreement that ARIN asks "Legacy" holders to sign and remove ALL of the obstacles and objections of the legacy holders. Let the addresses be kept by them for free if they want, and let them transfer them if they want to for free or for a nominal administration charge, and remove all the reasons why they won't sign up now. Make them ARIN's friends and let them be a significant part of and add their voices and expertise to this community. I'll bet if reasonable optional fees were instituted, many would go ahead and pay them at least once. As long as ARIN's expenses are met ongoing, and everybody is included - everybody wins. All of the "legacy" holders were early adopters and helped in their own way to build and pay for the building of the Internet. This is their compensation for that and therefore this is also fair to the folks who signed up with ARIN later on after the Internet was firmly established. Then as IPv4 winds down and IPv6 winds up this problem just goes away and ARIN now has a lot more friends and a lot less adversaries. I'm guessing I'm not the first to advocate doing this but in only two months being a member of this community, it is very obvious that this is the only solution that can ever work. One last thing. I'm guessing as folks read this their first inclination will be to pick this submission apart. Most likely I am wrong about certain things I've written and I'm sure there are folks who would be happy to pick it apart point by point and point that out. If that happens then the overall point of this submission has been missed! It is OK if I'm wrong in places and it is OK if I have opinions different than other members of this community. The one place I am not wrong though is my point in the last paragraph that it would be better to join forces with the Legacy holders than fight them and possibly lose - because if fighting them is chosen then someday very soon a court will make this decision for ARIN and this community - and very rarely does a court make everyone happy. Now I will go back to my real job of helping customers utilizing the Internet that I helped build in a small way. Hope I followed my own request for these submissions to be constructive. :-) Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 6:20 PM To: Morizot Timothy S Cc: ARIN PPML Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Morizot Timothy S wrote: > It's likely the governmental and educational legacy users have a different perspective, but I don't personally understand what's objectionable in the LRSA. We didn't find anything in it objectionable and signed it primarily to make the waiver John mentions explicit rather than implicit. And before anything gets signed here, a lot of people in procurement and other areas, often including legal assessment, have to review it to make sure we are not obligating the agency to anything we shouldn't be. I'm glad that you found the LRSA to be useful and contain the rights that you expected; it's been quite a bit of time and effort to get it right. If your perspective was that the number resources should not be subject to any policy, i.e. that they are entirely a form of personal property to do as you please, then you might have a different perspective on the usefulness of the LRSA. As it turns out, how the number resources are used can have real implications for service providers, including in areas such as network operations and routing, so they are instead resources which are subject to community-based policies set via an open and transparent participation process. There is nothing wrong with policy that favors one particular type of resource holder (if the community feels that is the right outcome) and that includes creation favorable policies for those with legacy resources if so desired. ARIN staff will implement such policies if/when they are developed and adopted. The area of fundamental disagreement is whether legacy holders operate in a policy free zone (and that inherently is a matter that can not be truly resolved by the development of number resource policy which states such; the only dispositive path is the legal route.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jrhett at netconsonance.com Thu Jun 21 15:45:53 2012 From: jrhett at netconsonance.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:45:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources In-Reply-To: <4FE2808D.5000405@umn.edu> References: <98E8C412B2F47D48A79816422B860E1B04B9EC926D40@lb3ex01> <20120619195501.H42665@mail.inlandnet.com> <9BF22062-64E4-42DB-B3E5-20F9BEE97D72@netconsonance.com> <4FE2808D.5000405@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2012, at 7:01 PM, David Farmer wrote: > However, there is a minority of legacy resource holders and possibly a few consumers of resources (I'm not sure on that one) that want to leverage the lack of contracts into the idea that legacy resource holders don't have to follow any rules, this is equally corrosive to trust in the other direction. Yes, with well explained analogies that fail to support their conclusion ;-) > Milton has been saying this is a game of chicken, the more I think about it, there is a way more complicated game theory model going on here, if game theory even actually applies, as there are external players in the game like judges, and many many players. So, I'm not sure what it is, but it not the simple two player game of chicken. No, it's not. And if it were a game of chicken, no rational business would take that risk anyway. Seriously -- run your network non-optimally, or spend a few hours and $100 to run it optimally. Not much value in that chicken. Has wings but can't fly any better than vixie's pigs :) -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christoph.blecker at ubc.ca Thu Jun 21 16:25:13 2012 From: christoph.blecker at ubc.ca (Blecker, Christoph) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:25:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry Message-ID: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> There have been, very literally, volumes written on this proposal in the last few days. I think unfortunately as a result, some of the message is getting lost in semantics. It's worth noting that this proposal makes no change to the way that ARIN and this community is operating today. It's just a clarification/codification of that current operating standard. There is no attack against legacy holders going on. The reality is, for the internet to work different entities (corporate, education, government, private, public, etc) all need to work together. Yes, we all have different interests, but that is why we are having such lively discussion. Similarly heated discussions go on in many other internet governance forums, all with many different competing interests as well. Again, bringing things back to the reality of the situation, it's completely counterproductive for the ARIN community to start a war on legacy holders. It's not something that I have any reasonable believe will happen. The idea that is being addressed and clarified by this proposal (and one that I fundamentally support) is that there is no such thing as a "policy-free zone". Nobody is trying to strip legacy holders of their space. We are just saying that if any address space holder (legacy or not) wants to play ball with the rest of the internet, you can't just go off in a corner and do whatever you want. Some reasons behind these policies are technical. Some are organizational. Some just promote fairness and a level playing field. No, unless there is a contract signed between an entity and ARIN, ARIN has little recourse if a legacy holder decides that they don't want to comply with policies. However, ARIN doesn't have to return the favour of updating their registry either. It's like if one network decided they wanted to advertise their whole IPv4 network as individual /32s, there is nothing stopping them from doing that. Except that if they want to peer (paid or otherwise) with another network there is no obligation for that network to actually accept those routes (and in most cases, will drop them like third period French). That's why there are conventions and understandings between all the different networks out on the internet, that allow all of us to work together. I think it's completely fair to say (and that's how ARIN has been operating up till this point) that if you want to play ball and have nice things like up-to-date entries in the registry, as well as the other services that ARIN provides (such as RDNS and in the future things like RPKI) that you have to play by the same rules as everybody else. *Or even better*, that if you don't like a rule participate in a forum like this to get it changed. But just in the same way that you can't pick and choose which laws you want to respect (or else society would break down), you can't pick and choose which internet governance policies you want to respect (or else the internet as we know it today would break down). Just some things that have been going through my mind while reading all this. Cheers, -- Christoph Blecker The University of British Columbia > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: June-21-12 12:42 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All > Resources in the Registry > > I have only been a full-fledged member of this community for a couple of > months. This is the first post I have ever made to this community forum. > It has been very interesting reading all of the email generated by this > community on various subjects. I am not sure what all of the "rules" are > that have been set up before me, but if one does not already exist, I would > ask that one be set up that states that all submissions be of a clear > constructive nature and be in a constructive format - and provide the > reason(s) why a member advocates a particular position or change plus the > benefit to all. Certainly some submissions do exactly this but some do not > and the ones that do not are mostly a waste of everyone's time for anyone > who cares to follow this community. > > I am also one of those rebellious "Legacy" Internet Address holders as I got > a /24 for myself on 3/14/1994. At that time I routinely got Class C > Internet addresses assigned for my clients. I'm guessing that over the > years there have been probably tens of thousands of emails concerning > "Legacy" IP Block holders and blocks submitted in this community. I don't > expect that my little email will change much but I'll throw my two cents in > and see if anybody is interested. > > I have always thought that my little Class C address block had value even in > the years I was not using it. I parked it at an ISP I know to hold it and > they used it for their purposes when I wasn't using it. I know it actually > does have value because I have had several offers to buy it - all of which I > turned down. I'm guessing the value will go up as IPv4 block are further > restricted by ARIN policy or a real shortage. I consider it an asset > because I could make a phone call today and get a check for it. I still > have all of the documentation from 1994 from the InterNIC including the > application they faxed me and my submission letter and the letter they > mailed me via USPS confirming my assignment of my Class C. I pulled them > all out today and read them all. The application was 3 pages long and the > letter they sent me back was a half of a page. Nowhere in that > documentation does it say that I don't own this block and nowhere does it > say I can't transfer it at will under my terms. In fact it does not mention > anywhere that there is any other legal agreement of any kind that was part > of the transaction of getting the block assigned to me. Therefore I read > this in the broadest possible way and feel I can do anything reasonable with > it if I choose to including sell it if I want. This is an unforeseen > benefit of being an early Internet adopter and I feel I did my part albeit > small to help the Internet grow. > > So here we are in 2012. I decided to build a data center providing Internet > services to my customers. I called my friend up at the ISP and told him I > needed my block back and installed a Metro-E line and am now using my block > to service customers. I made the business decision that I needed to provide > my customers with full BGP redundancy and got onto ARIN's web site and > forked over the money to get my ASN number and was assigned one after I > proved I needed it. I also decided that the time had come to offer my > customers IPv6 and I made the business decision to fork over the money to > get my IPv6 /32 block so I could do that. (I am surprised to see that the > number of IPv6 blocks ARIN sells each month is only about 40 - guess I am an > early adopter again or maybe they are too expensive.) It is my opinion that > that the cost for the ASN number was reasonable and that the cost for the > IPv6 was quite high for a company of my size. I know the IPv6 prices have > been somewhat reduced to entice folks to switch from IPv4 but my opinion is > still my opinion that they are too high. Lowering the cost even more might > increase IPv6 utilization faster. I'm guessing the AT&T's of the world and > all the other folks who have Class A addresses might not find it so high > because of their deep pockets - but I did. > > I didn't bother to read the legalese that came along with both of these > purchases as it doesn't really matter if I agree with them or not. I can't > change them (as I'm too small to have any clout) and the only way I could > get an ASN number and an IPv6 block from ARIN was to accept their legalese > and pay their fee. It is possible that the ASN number purchase put my > "Legacy" block under agreement with ARIN but since I didn't read the > legalese I don't really know. I don't actually care that much if it did but > if I had my druthers I would prefer to keep my little Class C in legacy > status - especially if it is free to do so. > > I've been told that ARIN has sent out numerous letters/emails to "Legacy" > holders trying to convince us to sign an agreement with ARIN. Oddly I've > never received one even though my email address that IS listed with my Class > C has never changed and still works. Like any sales offer, if I received a > request from ARIN I would read it and make a business decision and either do > it or not based on what I think the best decision is for me. > > Note that I tried to make a change in the company name for my block (as I > changed our company name from Eclipse Computer to Eclipse Networks) and > figured I'd go ahead and see if ARIN would do it. They refused unless I > provided them a bunch of documentation which I tried to do but gave up. > Maybe their requests were 100% reasonable and maybe they were protecting me > by requiring me to provide them stuff, but, nowhere on my paperwork from the > InterNIC does it say I need to get approval from ARIN and conform to their > policies to make that change. For that matter, it doesn't even say I need > to abide by the policies of the InterNIC either which is odd. ARIN > currently has a monopoly on the IP number database for North America so if I > want to be listed I am essentially forced to go thru them for both new stuff > (like I just did) and old stuff which predated them. I'm not saying that is > good or bad as I could easily make an argument for both. > > When I read all of the email going thru this community - I see very clearly > that most folks are doing just that - making business decisions on what they > think is best for themselves or their customers. I think doing this is part > of human nature and I don't expect humans to do anything different unless > they see some other good in it for them. What is very clear in the short > time I have been reading submissions in this community is that there will > never be a consensus on what to do with the "Legacy" holders unless the > "Legacy" holders are ALL part of the process - something that is probably > not possible. I have no way to tell when a comment made to this community > is coming from a legacy holder or not - or a hybrid like me. > > It appears to make some folks in this community VERY unhappy that they/we > won't all conform and agree to be under an ARIN agreement and pay the > corresponding fees. Based on what I've seen in these community emails, I > gather that some of those large Fortune 500 Legacy holders have chosen not > to subject their very large IP blocks to ARINs authority by signing an > agreement with ARIN. Assuming they got the same or similar documentation > from the InterNIC (or whatever/whoever preceded them) that I did - then I > don't see any legal reason they must because the documentation and the > assignment letter don't mention any legal framework that these block number > assignments fall under and don't address this issue at all. I'm not an > attorney but I'm pretty sure that that makes the "Legacy" holders subject > only to whatever is written in the application and assignment letter plus > whatever applicable laws might apply to such an assignment. Congress does > have the power to pass a law overriding this and dictating how this all > should be done but I'm guessing those large "Legacy" holders that have deep > pockets also have the political clout and lobbyists to make that difficult > for ARIN to achieve - not to mention the other countries ARIN serves. Also > it is quite possible that if ARIN's "community" decided to implement a > significant policy that the large legacy holders severely don't like at all, > like to refuse to list a large block that is sold outside of ARINs control, > then they could gang up on ARIN and pool there already considerable > resources and probably win (one way or another) - giving ARIN a huge black > eye and thus causing ARIN to be viewed as not fully legitimate. I learned a > long time ago that if elephants are tap dancing in your direction it is > probably a good idea to get out of their way. I'm guessing (to pick 3 > random companies for illustration purposes) that Sprint, Ford, and GE could > replicate the ARIN database function separately within a month or so and > that they have enough clout and friendly CEO's of other fortune 500 > companies with IP blocks to create a competing registry which would be taken > seriously by the rest of the Internet world because the rest of the world > wants to do business with them too. In the real world these CEO's vacation > together and their wives are best friends. To ignore the power of fortune > 500 CEOs (and their wives) collectively is foolhardy. > > Each interested party has their own agenda. If I'm John Curran (and the > board of directors) and I'm responsible to manage and administrate the ARIN > organization then I would prefer all block holder be under a common > agreement as that makes my job much easier and less costly to do and I would > probably work towards that end. (That is what I see is happening.) If I'm > a big "Legacy" block holder then I want to keep my costs down and free IP > addresses are less costly than ones I have to pay for and unless ARIN can > provide me something that offsets my costs with them and possibly makes me > money - I'm not really interested in signing up with ARIN since I don't > legally have to. Their Legal issues are probably greatly reduced if they > don't sign an agreement also. If I'm a small "legacy" block holder (which I > am), I definitely want to keep my costs down since I don't have deep pockets > and free IP addresses are definitely better than paying for them. If I'm > someone who has one or more ASN number and publishes my managed addresses > directly on the Internet then I want to make sure whatever process is used > by others to obtain their IP addresses doesn't screw me and my customers up > from utilizing the Internet. Finally if I'm and end user I just want the > Internet to work properly as fast and cheaply as possible. > > I would also add that John Curran has the fiduciary responsibility of being > the ARIN CEO and surely has been advised may times by the board of directors > and legal counsel on the direction they are going. When he participates in > this forum his fiduciary duty is to further the ARIN mission and follow > guidelines laid out by his board, his legal advisors and then this > community. It is obvious to me that there are just some things he cannot or > should not say in this written community as a sharp attorney somewhere will > pick it up and potentially use it for their own purposes which may be at > odds with ARRINs state mission. To that end I doubt he would come out and > say definitively something like "ARIN has no legal right to manage the IP > blocks that legacy holders have" - even if that is what he and his board and > his legal advisors have concluded. Obviously most of the members of this > community are not privy to what is said in private behind closed doors. I > would also add that reading between the lines it appears that ARIN is > striving to keep the peace with Legacy holders and provide them at least > some service and that of course is positive for all - but I would add that > an even more positive relationship is possible and desirable. > > Based on the fact that everyone involved will want to continue making the > business decisions they decide is best for themselves concerning these > "Legacy" blocks, I think it is prudent for ARIN to make the best of a > difficult situation. The problem will slowly fix itself as IPv6 is adopted > under ARIN agreements but I'm guessing that is ten years or so before IPv4 > isn't needed much anymore. In the meantime, deciding to fight all of the > "Legacy" holders isn't a winning proposition especially with the deep > pockets and political clout out there - and the lack of a clearly > enforceable agreement that has been successfully scrutinized by the courts. > I see some folks advocating strongly in this community to reign in "legacy" > holders - but no amount of Policies put in place by ARIN will ever solve > this issue and it is futile for ARIN to create policies that a large > percentage of the Internet "legacy" holders will just ignore. > > I would propose that instead of fighting the "Legacy" holders, why doesn't > ARIN just join them. I don't know what the costs are for ARIN to conduct > their mission and I don't know if the revenue they get now pays all of their > bills or not. I'm sure ARIN knows by now pretty much all of the issues that > are keeping the "Legacy" holders from signing up. Change the agreement that > ARIN asks "Legacy" holders to sign and remove ALL of the obstacles and > objections of the legacy holders. Let the addresses be kept by them for > free if they want, and let them transfer them if they want to for free or > for a nominal administration charge, and remove all the reasons why they > won't sign up now. Make them ARIN's friends and let them be a significant > part of and add their voices and expertise to this community. I'll bet if > reasonable optional fees were instituted, many would go ahead and pay them > at least once. As long as ARIN's expenses are met ongoing, and everybody is > included - everybody wins. All of the "legacy" holders were early adopters > and helped in their own way to build and pay for the building of the > Internet. This is their compensation for that and therefore this is also > fair to the folks who signed up with ARIN later on after the Internet was > firmly established. Then as IPv4 winds down and IPv6 winds up this problem > just goes away and ARIN now has a lot more friends and a lot less > adversaries. I'm guessing I'm not the first to advocate doing this but in > only two months being a member of this community, it is very obvious that > this is the only solution that can ever work. > > One last thing. I'm guessing as folks read this their first inclination > will be to pick this submission apart. Most likely I am wrong about certain > things I've written and I'm sure there are folks who would be happy to pick > it apart point by point and point that out. If that happens then the > overall point of this submission has been missed! It is OK if I'm wrong in > places and it is OK if I have opinions different than other members of this > community. The one place I am not wrong though is my point in the last > paragraph that it would be better to join forces with the Legacy holders > than fight them and possibly lose - because if fighting them is chosen then > someday very soon a court will make this decision for ARIN and this > community - and very rarely does a court make everyone happy. Now I will > go back to my real job of helping customers utilizing the Internet that I > helped build in a small way. Hope I followed my own request for these > submissions to be constructive. :-) > > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 16:57:19 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:57:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A0F7.5080501@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:53 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry .... > Policy statement: > > Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; > > ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN > number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, > including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the > Internet Registry system. > > Rationale: > > There is a perception by some that ARIN policy may not apply to legacy > resources. This proposal clarifies that ARIN policies apply to all > resources in the ARIN registry regardless if they are legacy-issued > resources. ARIN was formed to give the users of IP numbers within North > American a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated > in the region. While I agree with the concept, I do not think this is a proposal that should move forward. Perception is largely irrelevant. And, given that the positions are so strongly held, I believe that the perceptions will not change whatever the language says. What I think really matters is the practice, and/or the potential for benefit or harm by adopting this proposal. The existing ARIN practice seems to be consistent with the proposal. Therefore, this proposal, in my mind, lacks a clear practical benefit for adoption, at least for the rationale provided of perception. A potential harm would seem to be opening the worm can earlier than someone might be prepared to deal with it. While one should clearly stand up for ones values, that does not say one needs to be confrontational just because one can be. So, while I am not entirely comfortable with the existing legacy status quo of some potential ambiguity, and some strong disagreements in peoples minds, I am sort of resigned to it, and, I do not see the potential benefits in this proposal to justify moving forward. Gary From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 21 18:58:05 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:58:05 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) In-Reply-To: References: <20120620201903.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.16d9f126b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <691C91F8-67E1-4D16-A62E-9077D9866520@delong.com> Message-ID: <0705D01E-1F25-4591-B7D4-B5E55F29067C@delong.com> On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:15 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Yes, but the exclusive right to use is ill-defined at best. Use requires a >> context. > > Hi Owen, > > I think you're seeing ambiguity where there is none but if I'm wrong a > future case will surely clarify it. In the mean time I think it > relatively safe to presume the scope at least includes use in networks > touching the public Internet. Do you think the judge intended a more > narrow scope? Is there some part of the debate which hinges on the > judge intending a wider scope? > You completely ignored half of my message, so I will endeavor to be more clear... As I said in the previous message. If, as you say, the judge literally intended to issue an injunction against multiple independent network operators not party to the case, then, I believe such a ruling would be easily invalidated as overreaching far beyond the judges role. I said it was ambiguous at best because it needs a much more specific and limited definition in order to be viable in the context of the ruling, so I was endeavoring to give the judge the benefit of the doubt and not assume that he simply didn't understand the nature of the internet. I agree it is very likely that his intent was as you say. However, in that case, the facts in the real world cannot possibly reflect his ruling as there is no meaningful way for that to be the case. I could use the same numbers today without violating any law and since I am not a party to the ruling in question or to any contract with Micr0$0ft or Nortel, even by extension, I am not subject to said ruling. There is no such thing as the exclusive right to use integers and there is no such thing as "the public internet". Instead, these are convenient fictions used to describe common practice among cooperating organizations. The theoretical exclusive right to use actually describes the informal agreement among cooperating network operators amongst each other and with the RIRs to use the RIR system of registries for address uniqueness among the set of cooperating networks which exchange traffic and the more formal agreements among the RIRs and IANA which enable the RIR system to operate a set of registries which provide global uniqueness. The term "the public internet" does not describe any factual single entity, but an organism of entities made up of independent network operators who have loosely agreed to a common set of protocols and generally cooperate on addressing. An injunction against "the public internet" would be about as useful as an injunction against "Santa Clause". Instead, a judge seeking to do so would need to individually enjoin each such independent network operator, most of whom are out of the scope of the case in question as they were not party to the case. So... In order for that to be viable precedent, it would have to be narrower in scope. I can't imagine a wider scope, but even if I could, I doubt it would be valid as even your proposed scope is not valid. Owen From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Jun 21 19:26:06 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:26:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Appreciate your input and agree with most of what your email says. I'm not surprised that volumes are being written on this subject. My comments were not just reflected toward prop 174 but some of the others that are being discussed as well. Reading between the lines some folks think they can use policy to achieve their goals. Policies can be an important tool but if they don't reflect the real world they just cause more problems for the policy people. I see lots of comments that ignore reality. Better we deal with reality as it really is - so we can accomplish something. I've seen comments by John Curran on public blogs where he says things like ARIN isn't obligated to list or transfer IP blocks. I assume this is true. Other folks writing on the same forums claim that he is using scare tactics. Since I don't know John I give him the benefit of the doubt. But if you are a big legacy holder and you read that, you might decide that better to stay completely away from ARIN for as long as possible just to make sure current interests are protected. Any comment coming from ARIN that might be interpreted as a threat - intended or not - to unlist or not update the ARIN database forces them into a defensive stance to protect themselves. When big "Legacy" holders shields are up nothing good will be accomplished. They have big shields! If ARIN ever decides not to list a transferred IP block between big legacy holders that refuse to sign any ARIN agreement, it is Armageddon time. That would mean that ARIN wouldn't handle 100% of the existing IP listings in its database anymore - and now it isn't serving 100% of North America which is of course its mission. Consequently, not listing 100% might get ARIN a black eye by the whole Internet community worldwide since they couldn't rely on ARIN fully anymore like they did up until that day. There would be a huge court battle and as my original post concludes, nobody might like the outcome that comes from a judge. Everybody loses. In case anybody doesn't know, judges are all powerful - especially bankruptcy judges. Unless of course the CEO goes on vacation with a couple of influential US Senators in which case congress will decide it and again a solution is forced upon ARIN and it might not be the one that ARIN wants. Why on earth would ARIN ever want to take that chance. The best way is to befriend everyone including the Legacy holders and make sure they know ARIN is their friend via legal agreement. Tell the legacy holders that they will transfer the blocks every time and will make it easy to do so with a reasonable administrative fee. Join with them and make them our friends with a written agreement that proves it. Then ARIN will achieve its mission. One last thought. I need to get three /24 IPv4 blocks from ARIN to use in the data center I'm building. I would like to be treated the same as Microsoft and sign the same agreement they got to sign from ARIN (I've never read it) and not have to prove I need the addresses like they didn't have to. This means I think everyone should be treated equally by ARIN in every transfer. Of course if Microsoft has to prove they need them then of course I'd be happy to prove I need them too - but I don't think Microsoft did have to prove their need and ARIN ended up being a party to the transaction. Guess I must be a renegade. I'll get down off my soapbox now. :-) Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Blecker, Christoph Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:25 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry There have been, very literally, volumes written on this proposal in the last few days. I think unfortunately as a result, some of the message is getting lost in semantics. It's worth noting that this proposal makes no change to the way that ARIN and this community is operating today. It's just a clarification/codification of that current operating standard. There is no attack against legacy holders going on. The reality is, for the internet to work different entities (corporate, education, government, private, public, etc) all need to work together. Yes, we all have different interests, but that is why we are having such lively discussion. Similarly heated discussions go on in many other internet governance forums, all with many different competing interests as well. Again, bringing things back to the reality of the situation, it's completely counterproductive for the ARIN community to start a war on legacy holders. It's not something that I have any reasonable believe will happen. The idea that is being addressed and clarified by this proposal (and one that I fundamentally support) is that there is no such thing as a "policy-free zone". Nobody is trying to strip legacy holders of their space. We are just saying that if any address space holder (legacy or not) wants to play ball with the rest of the internet, you can't just go off in a corner and do whatever you want. Some reasons behind these policies are technical. Some are organizational. Some just promote fairness and a level playing field. No, unless there is a contract signed between an entity and ARIN, ARIN has little recourse if a legacy holder decides that they don't want to comply with policies. However, ARIN doesn't have to return the favour of updating their registry either. It's like if one network decided they wanted to advertise their whole IPv4 network as individual /32s, there is nothing stopping them from doing that. Except that if they want to peer (paid or otherwise) with another network there is no obligation for that network to actually accept those routes (and in most cases, will drop them like third period French). That's why there are conventions and understandings between all the different networks out on the internet, that allow all of us to work together. I think it's completely fair to say (and that's how ARIN has been operating up till this point) that if you want to play ball and have nice things like up-to-date entries in the registry, as well as the other services that ARIN provides (such as RDNS and in the future things like RPKI) that you have to play by the same rules as everybody else. *Or even better*, that if you don't like a rule participate in a forum like this to get it changed. But just in the same way that you can't pick and choose which laws you want to respect (or else society would break down), you can't pick and choose which internet governance policies you want to respect (or else the internet as we know it today would break down). Just some things that have been going through my mind while reading all this. Cheers, -- Christoph Blecker The University of British Columbia > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: June-21-12 12:42 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply > to All Resources in the Registry > > I have only been a full-fledged member of this community for a couple > of months. This is the first post I have ever made to this community forum. > It has been very interesting reading all of the email generated by > this community on various subjects. I am not sure what all of the > "rules" are that have been set up before me, but if one does not > already exist, I would ask that one be set up that states that all > submissions be of a clear constructive nature and be in a constructive > format - and provide the > reason(s) why a member advocates a particular position or change plus > the benefit to all. Certainly some submissions do exactly this but > some do not and the ones that do not are mostly a waste of everyone's > time for anyone who cares to follow this community. > > I am also one of those rebellious "Legacy" Internet Address holders as > I got a /24 for myself on 3/14/1994. At that time I routinely got > Class C Internet addresses assigned for my clients. I'm guessing that > over the years there have been probably tens of thousands of emails > concerning "Legacy" IP Block holders and blocks submitted in this > community. I don't expect that my little email will change much but > I'll throw my two cents in and see if anybody is interested. > > I have always thought that my little Class C address block had value > even in the years I was not using it. I parked it at an ISP I know to > hold it and they used it for their purposes when I wasn't using it. I > know it actually does have value because I have had several offers to > buy it - all of which I turned down. I'm guessing the value will go > up as IPv4 block are further restricted by ARIN policy or a real > shortage. I consider it an asset because I could make a phone call > today and get a check for it. I still have all of the documentation > from 1994 from the InterNIC including the application they faxed me > and my submission letter and the letter they mailed me via USPS > confirming my assignment of my Class C. I pulled them all out today > and read them all. The application was 3 pages long and the letter > they sent me back was a half of a page. Nowhere in that documentation > does it say that I don't own this block and nowhere does it say I > can't transfer it at will under my terms. In fact it does not mention > anywhere that there is any other legal agreement of any kind that was > part of the transaction of getting the block assigned to me. > Therefore I read this in the broadest possible way and feel I can do > anything reasonable with it if I choose to including sell it if I > want. This is an unforeseen benefit of being an early Internet adopter and I feel I did my part albeit small to help the Internet grow. > > So here we are in 2012. I decided to build a data center providing > Internet services to my customers. I called my friend up at the ISP > and told him I needed my block back and installed a Metro-E line and > am now using my block to service customers. I made the business > decision that I needed to provide my customers with full BGP > redundancy and got onto ARIN's web site and forked over the money to > get my ASN number and was assigned one after I proved I needed it. I > also decided that the time had come to offer my customers IPv6 and I > made the business decision to fork over the money to get my IPv6 /32 > block so I could do that. (I am surprised to see that the number of > IPv6 blocks ARIN sells each month is only about 40 - guess I am an > early adopter again or maybe they are too expensive.) It is my > opinion that that the cost for the ASN number was reasonable and that > the cost for the > IPv6 was quite high for a company of my size. I know the IPv6 prices > have been somewhat reduced to entice folks to switch from IPv4 but my > opinion is still my opinion that they are too high. Lowering the cost > even more might increase IPv6 utilization faster. I'm guessing the > AT&T's of the world and all the other folks who have Class A addresses > might not find it so high because of their deep pockets - but I did. > > I didn't bother to read the legalese that came along with both of > these purchases as it doesn't really matter if I agree with them or > not. I can't change them (as I'm too small to have any clout) and the > only way I could get an ASN number and an IPv6 block from ARIN was to > accept their legalese and pay their fee. It is possible that the ASN > number purchase put my "Legacy" block under agreement with ARIN but > since I didn't read the legalese I don't really know. I don't > actually care that much if it did but if I had my druthers I would > prefer to keep my little Class C in legacy status - especially if it is free to do so. > > I've been told that ARIN has sent out numerous letters/emails to "Legacy" > holders trying to convince us to sign an agreement with ARIN. Oddly > I've never received one even though my email address that IS listed > with my Class C has never changed and still works. Like any sales > offer, if I received a request from ARIN I would read it and make a > business decision and either do it or not based on what I think the best decision is for me. > > Note that I tried to make a change in the company name for my block > (as I changed our company name from Eclipse Computer to Eclipse > Networks) and figured I'd go ahead and see if ARIN would do it. They > refused unless I provided them a bunch of documentation which I tried to do but gave up. > Maybe their requests were 100% reasonable and maybe they were > protecting me by requiring me to provide them stuff, but, nowhere on > my paperwork from the InterNIC does it say I need to get approval from > ARIN and conform to their policies to make that change. For that > matter, it doesn't even say I need to abide by the policies of the > InterNIC either which is odd. ARIN currently has a monopoly on the IP > number database for North America so if I want to be listed I am > essentially forced to go thru them for both new stuff (like I just > did) and old stuff which predated them. I'm not saying that is good or bad as I could easily make an argument for both. > > When I read all of the email going thru this community - I see very > clearly that most folks are doing just that - making business > decisions on what they think is best for themselves or their > customers. I think doing this is part of human nature and I don't > expect humans to do anything different unless they see some other good > in it for them. What is very clear in the short time I have been > reading submissions in this community is that there will never be a > consensus on what to do with the "Legacy" holders unless the "Legacy" > holders are ALL part of the process - something that is probably not > possible. I have no way to tell when a comment made to this community is coming from a legacy holder or not - or a hybrid like me. > > It appears to make some folks in this community VERY unhappy that > they/we won't all conform and agree to be under an ARIN agreement and > pay the corresponding fees. Based on what I've seen in these > community emails, I gather that some of those large Fortune 500 Legacy > holders have chosen not to subject their very large IP blocks to ARINs > authority by signing an agreement with ARIN. Assuming they got the > same or similar documentation from the InterNIC (or whatever/whoever > preceded them) that I did - then I don't see any legal reason they > must because the documentation and the assignment letter don't mention any legal framework that these block number > assignments fall under and don't address this issue at all. I'm not an > attorney but I'm pretty sure that that makes the "Legacy" holders > subject only to whatever is written in the application and assignment > letter plus whatever applicable laws might apply to such an > assignment. Congress does have the power to pass a law overriding > this and dictating how this all should be done but I'm guessing those > large "Legacy" holders that have deep pockets also have the political > clout and lobbyists to make that difficult for ARIN to achieve - not > to mention the other countries ARIN serves. Also it is quite possible > that if ARIN's "community" decided to implement a significant policy > that the large legacy holders severely don't like at all, like to > refuse to list a large block that is sold outside of ARINs control, > then they could gang up on ARIN and pool there already considerable > resources and probably win (one way or another) - giving ARIN a huge > black eye and thus causing ARIN to be viewed as not fully legitimate. > I learned a long time ago that if elephants are tap dancing in your > direction it is probably a good idea to get out of their way. I'm > guessing (to pick 3 random companies for illustration purposes) that > Sprint, Ford, and GE could replicate the ARIN database function > separately within a month or so and that they have enough clout and > friendly CEO's of other fortune 500 companies with IP blocks to create > a competing registry which would be taken seriously by the rest of the > Internet world because the rest of the world wants to do business with > them too. In the real world these CEO's vacation together and their > wives are best friends. To ignore the power of fortune > 500 CEOs (and their wives) collectively is foolhardy. > > Each interested party has their own agenda. If I'm John Curran (and > the board of directors) and I'm responsible to manage and administrate > the ARIN organization then I would prefer all block holder be under a > common agreement as that makes my job much easier and less costly to > do and I would probably work towards that end. (That is what I see is > happening.) If I'm a big "Legacy" block holder then I want to keep my > costs down and free IP addresses are less costly than ones I have to > pay for and unless ARIN can provide me something that offsets my costs > with them and possibly makes me money - I'm not really interested in > signing up with ARIN since I don't legally have to. Their Legal > issues are probably greatly reduced if they don't sign an agreement > also. If I'm a small "legacy" block holder (which I am), I definitely > want to keep my costs down since I don't have deep pockets and free IP > addresses are definitely better than paying for them. If I'm someone > who has one or more ASN number and publishes my managed addresses > directly on the Internet then I want to make sure whatever process is > used by others to obtain their IP addresses doesn't screw me and my > customers up from utilizing the Internet. Finally if I'm and end user I just want the Internet to work properly as fast and cheaply as possible. > > I would also add that John Curran has the fiduciary responsibility of > being the ARIN CEO and surely has been advised may times by the board > of directors and legal counsel on the direction they are going. When > he participates in this forum his fiduciary duty is to further the > ARIN mission and follow guidelines laid out by his board, his legal > advisors and then this community. It is obvious to me that there are > just some things he cannot or should not say in this written community > as a sharp attorney somewhere will pick it up and potentially use it > for their own purposes which may be at odds with ARRINs state mission. > To that end I doubt he would come out and say definitively something > like "ARIN has no legal right to manage the IP blocks that legacy > holders have" - even if that is what he and his board and his legal > advisors have concluded. Obviously most of the members of this > community are not privy to what is said in private behind closed > doors. I would also add that reading between the lines it appears > that ARIN is striving to keep the peace with Legacy holders and > provide them at least some service and that of course is positive for all - but I would add that an even more positive relationship is possible and desirable. > > Based on the fact that everyone involved will want to continue making > the business decisions they decide is best for themselves concerning > these "Legacy" blocks, I think it is prudent for ARIN to make the best > of a difficult situation. The problem will slowly fix itself as IPv6 > is adopted under ARIN agreements but I'm guessing that is ten years or > so before IPv4 isn't needed much anymore. In the meantime, deciding > to fight all of the "Legacy" holders isn't a winning proposition > especially with the deep pockets and political clout out there - and > the lack of a clearly enforceable agreement that has been successfully scrutinized by the courts. > I see some folks advocating strongly in this community to reign in "legacy" > holders - but no amount of Policies put in place by ARIN will ever > solve this issue and it is futile for ARIN to create policies that a > large percentage of the Internet "legacy" holders will just ignore. > > I would propose that instead of fighting the "Legacy" holders, why > doesn't ARIN just join them. I don't know what the costs are for ARIN > to conduct their mission and I don't know if the revenue they get now > pays all of their bills or not. I'm sure ARIN knows by now pretty > much all of the issues that are keeping the "Legacy" holders from > signing up. Change the agreement that ARIN asks "Legacy" holders to > sign and remove ALL of the obstacles and objections of the legacy > holders. Let the addresses be kept by them for free if they want, and > let them transfer them if they want to for free or for a nominal > administration charge, and remove all the reasons why they won't sign > up now. Make them ARIN's friends and let them be a significant part > of and add their voices and expertise to this community. I'll bet if > reasonable optional fees were instituted, many would go ahead and pay > them at least once. As long as ARIN's expenses are met ongoing, and > everybody is included - everybody wins. All of the "legacy" holders > were early adopters and helped in their own way to build and pay for > the building of the Internet. This is their compensation for that and > therefore this is also fair to the folks who signed up with ARIN later > on after the Internet was firmly established. Then as IPv4 winds down and IPv6 winds up this problem just goes away and ARIN now has a lot more friends and a lot less > adversaries. I'm guessing I'm not the first to advocate doing this but in > only two months being a member of this community, it is very obvious > that this is the only solution that can ever work. > > One last thing. I'm guessing as folks read this their first > inclination will be to pick this submission apart. Most likely I am > wrong about certain things I've written and I'm sure there are folks > who would be happy to pick it apart point by point and point that out. > If that happens then the overall point of this submission has been > missed! It is OK if I'm wrong in places and it is OK if I have > opinions different than other members of this community. The one > place I am not wrong though is my point in the last paragraph that it > would be better to join forces with the Legacy holders than fight them > and possibly lose - because if fighting them is chosen then someday very soon a court will make this decision for ARIN and this > community - and very rarely does a court make everyone happy. Now I will > go back to my real job of helping customers utilizing the Internet > that I helped build in a small way. Hope I followed my own request > for these submissions to be constructive. :-) > > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 21:19:50 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:19:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I would like to be treated the same as Microsoft and sign the same > agreement they got to sign from ARIN (I've never read it) and not have to > prove I need the addresses like they didn't have to. This means I think > everyone should be treated equally by ARIN in every transfer. Of course if > Microsoft has to prove they need them then of course I'd be happy to prove > I need them too - but I don't think Microsoft did have to prove their need > and ARIN ended up being a party to the transaction. ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would have to do. AFAIK (and I'm only aware of what's been publicly posted here to PPML and at public policy meetings) the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA. And since the only real remaining difference between the two is the fee schedule, that is definitely not a policy matter. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 21:26:36 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:26:36 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: > > > >> >> ?I would like to be treated the same as Microsoft and sign the same >> agreement they got to sign from ARIN (I've never read it) and not have to >> prove I need the addresses like they didn't have to. ?This means I think >> everyone should be treated equally by ARIN in every transfer. ?Of course if >> Microsoft has to prove they need them then of course I'd be happy to prove I >> need them too - but I don't think Microsoft did have to prove their need and >> ARIN ended up being a party to the transaction. > > > ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that > requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would > have to do. Reference please. Best, -M< From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 21:36:28 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:36:28 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D0CD0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> <3E9C1278-DDC0-43B3-94D4-3142ACF6757E@corp.arin.net> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D0CD0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <45184643-FBF5-45A3-845B-84D9F3ED16B6@corp.arin.net> On Jun 21, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I have only been a full-fledged member of this community for a couple of months. This is the first post I have ever made to this community forum. It has been very interesting reading all of the email generated by this community on various subjects. I am not sure what all of the "rules" are that have been set up before me, but if one does not already exist, I would ask that one be set up that states that all submissions be of a clear constructive nature and be in a constructive format - and provide the reason(s) why a member advocates a particular position or change plus the benefit to all. Certainly some submissions do exactly this but some do not and the ones that do not are mostly a waste of everyone's time for anyone who cares to follow this community. > > I am also one of those rebellious "Legacy" Internet Address holders as I got a /24 for myself on 3/14/1994. At that time I routinely got Class C Internet addresses assigned for my clients. I'm guessing that over the years there have been probably tens of thousands of emails concerning "Legacy" IP Block holders and blocks submitted in this community. I don't expect that my little email will change much but I'll throw my two cents in and see if anybody is interested. Steven - Your input is quite welcome; thank you for taking the time to write up your thoughts. > I have always thought that my little Class C address block had value even in the years I was not using it. I parked it at an ISP I know to hold it and they used it for their purposes when I wasn't using it. I know it actually does have value because I have had several offers to buy it - all of which I turned down. I'm guessing the value will go up as IPv4 block are further restricted by ARIN policy or a real shortage. I consider it an asset because I could make a phone call today and get a check for it. I still have all of the documentation from 1994 from the InterNIC including the application they faxed me and my submission letter and the letter they mailed me via USPS confirming my assignment of my Class C. I pulled them all out today and read them all. The application was 3 pages long and the letter they sent me back was a half of a page. Nowhere in that documentation does it say that I don't own this block and nowhere does it say I can't transfer it at will under my terms. In fact it does not mention anywhere that there is any other legal agreement of any kind that was part of the transaction of getting the block assigned to me. Therefore I read this in the broadest possible way and feel I can do anything reasonable with it if I choose to including sell it if I want. This is an unforeseen benefit of being an early Internet adopter and I feel I did my part albeit small to help the Internet grow. That perspective is similar to those that have been expressed by some others who received early assignments, and indeed, there were thousands who each helped in their own way with growing the early Internet. In fact, I count myself in the that category (but do not hold any number resources for obvious reasons :-) > So here we are in 2012. I decided to build a data center providing Internet services to my customers. I called my friend up at the ISP and told him I needed my block back and installed a Metro-E line and am now using my block to service customers. I made the business decision that I needed to provide my customers with full BGP redundancy and got onto ARIN's web site and forked over the money to get my ASN number and was assigned one after I proved I needed it. I also decided that the time had come to offer my customers IPv6 and I made the business decision to fork over the money to get my IPv6 /32 block so I could do that. (I am surprised to see that the number of IPv6 blocks ARIN sells each month is only about 40 - guess I am an early adopter again or maybe they are too expensive.) We issue IPv6 address blocks to those who request them and qualify... (I'm not sure "sell" is the appropriate phrasing but do understand your point) > It is my opinion that that the cost for the ASN number was reasonable and that the cost for the IPv6 was quite high for a company of my size. I know the IPv6 prices have been somewhat reduced to entice folks to switch from IPv4 but my opinion is still my opinion that they are too high. Lowering the cost even more might increase IPv6 utilization faster. I'm guessing the AT&T's of the world and all the other folks who have Class A addresses might not find it so high because of their deep pockets - but I did. Acknowledged; we have tried to make IPv6 fees comparable to IPv4 fees but there is more work to be done here (and it still may be significant increase when compared to those with just IPv4 legacy space in any case) > I didn't bother to read the legalese that came along with both of these purchases as it doesn't really matter if I agree with them or not. I can't change them (as I'm too small to have any clout) and the only way I could get an ASN number and an IPv6 block from ARIN was to accept their legalese and pay their fee. It is possible that the ASN number purchase put my "Legacy" block under agreement with ARIN but since I didn't read the legalese I don't really know. I don't actually care that much if it did but if I had my druthers I would prefer to keep my little Class C in legacy status - especially if it is free to do so. The financial benefit is clear, although the registration fee under an LRSA is rather modest as well ($100/yr). Since we have to maintain the registry (including Whois, reverse DNS, bulk Whois, etc.), it seemed only fair that legacy IPv4 holders help pay something towards maintaining these systems. > I've been told that ARIN has sent out numerous letters/emails to "Legacy" holders trying to convince us to sign an agreement with ARIN. Oddly I've never received one even though my email address that IS listed with my Class C has never changed and still works. Like any sales offer, if I received a request from ARIN I would read it and make a business decision and either do it or not based on what I think the best decision is for me. I believe we sent one via postal mail and email to each address block holder; this is an open research item which I will report back on PPML shortly. > Note that I tried to make a change in the company name for my block (as I changed our company name from Eclipse Computer to Eclipse Networks) and figured I'd go ahead and see if ARIN would do it. They refused unless I provided them a bunch of documentation which I tried to do but gave up. Maybe their requests were 100% reasonable and maybe they were protecting me by requiring me to provide them stuff, but, nowhere on my paperwork from the InterNIC does it say I need to get approval from ARIN and conform to their policies to make that change. For that matter, it doesn't even say I need to abide by the policies of the InterNIC either which is odd. ARIN currently has a monopoly on the IP number database for North America so if I want to be listed I am essentially forced to go thru them for both new stuff (like I just did) and old stuff which predated them. I'm not saying that is good or bad as I could easily make an argument for both. We've developed processes over time which quite cautious with respect to changes; this is protection against potential hijacking of address blocks by nefarious parties (think bulk unsolicited emailers and botnet builders) I recognize that it can be a burden, but the alternative is high risk of parties losing their address space to clever corporate impersonators... > When I read all of the email going thru this community - I see very clearly that most folks are doing just that - making business decisions on what they think is best for themselves or their customers. I think doing this is part of human nature and I don't expect humans to do anything different unless they see some other good in it for them. What is very clear in the short time I have been reading submissions in this community is that there will never be a consensus on what to do with the "Legacy" holders unless the "Legacy" holders are ALL part of the process - something that is probably not possible. I have no way to tell when a comment made to this community is coming from a legacy holder or not - or a hybrid like me. It's very difficult to get _everyone_ involved in the process, whether everybody means legacy or ARIN-issued, service provider or end-user, or corporate vs educational vs government. In the case of discussing the address space issued long in the past, it's particularly difficult since there was a different culture and expectations in the early days versus the business conditions of today. > It appears to make some folks in this community VERY unhappy that they/we won't all conform and agree to be under an ARIN agreement and pay the corresponding fees. Based on what I've seen in these community emails, I gather that some of those large Fortune 500 Legacy holders have chosen not to subject their very large IP blocks to ARINs authority by signing an agreement with ARIN. Assuming they got the same or similar documentation from the InterNIC (or whatever/whoever preceded them) that I did - then I don't see any legal reason they must because the documentation and the assignment letter don't mention any legal framework that these block number assignments fall under and don't address this issue at all. I'm not an attorney but I'm pretty sure that that makes the "Legacy" holders subject only to whatever is written in the application and assignment letter plus whatever applicable laws might apply to such an assignment. Congress does have the power to pass a law overriding this and dictating how this all should be done but I'm guessing those large "Legacy" holders that have deep pockets also have the political clout and lobbyists to make that difficult for ARIN to achieve - not to mention the other countries ARIN serves. Also it is quite possible that if ARIN's "community" decided to implement a significant policy that the large legacy holders severely don't like at all, like to refuse to list a large block that is sold outside of ARINs control, then they could gang up on ARIN and pool there already considerable resources and probably win (one way or another) - giving ARIN a huge black eye and thus causing ARIN to be viewed as not fully legitimate. I learned a long time ago that if elephants are tap dancing in your direction it is probably a good idea to get out of their way. I'm guessing (to pick 3 random companies for illustration purposes) that Sprint, Ford, and GE could replicate the ARIN database function separately within a month or so and that they have enough clout and friendly CEO's of other fortune 500 companies with IP blocks to create a competing registry which would be taken seriously by the rest of the Internet world because the rest of the world wants to do business with them too. In the real world these CEO's vacation together and their wives are best friends. To ignore the power of fortune 500 CEOs (and their wives) collectively is foolhardy. Full agreement, but at present the major difference of view seems to be between the service provider community and some of those who hold legacy space; both of these are significant communities and ARIN finds itself in the middle. > Each interested party has their own agenda. If I'm John Curran (and the board of directors) and I'm responsible to manage and administrate the ARIN organization then I would prefer all block holder be under a common agreement as that makes my job much easier and less costly to do and I would probably work towards that end. (That is what I see is happening.) If I'm a big "Legacy" block holder then I want to keep my costs down and free IP addresses are less costly than ones I have to pay for and unless ARIN can provide me something that offsets my costs with them and possibly makes me money - I'm not really interested in signing up with ARIN since I don't legally have to. Their Legal issues are probably greatly reduced if they don't sign an agreement also. If I'm a small "legacy" block holder (which I am), I definitely want to keep my costs down since I don't have deep pockets and free IP addresses are definitely better than paying for them. If I'm someone who has one or more ASN number and publishes my managed addresses directly on the Internet then I want to make sure whatever process is used by others to obtain their IP addresses doesn't screw me and my customers up from utilizing the Internet. Finally if I'm and end user I just want the Internet to work properly as fast and cheaply as possible. Everyone who has an legacy address block has the materially the same capabilities as they had prior to ARIN's inception - as you have discovered, you can make use of your block, update contact info, list your reverse nameservers, etc. There is an open question as to what policies applied to legacy address space at the time of issuance, particularly given ambiguity of the issuance documentation but the existence of RFCs for the registry system containing policy. If you want to monetize your address space without the constraint of any policies applying, then this is a particularly problematic situation. The fact that there is no clear contract with ARIN is actually a two-edged sword, in that ARIN has no obligations to a legacy resource holder other than those implied from fulfilling the mission. This mission explicitly includes providing the community with a voice in setting the policies on how number resources in the region are managed. Note that ARIN enforces the community-developed policies because the registry is not just a service, but a shared activity of the Internet community which affects everyone. For example, the policies by which IPv4 addresses may be transferred have potential for significant routing implications as well as market accessibility questions for smaller organizations. I actually don't know what transfer policies are best overall; that is a matter for the community to discuss and decide. Where ARIN does not get a choice is in whether we enforce such policies on all of the address blocks in the registry; we were founded to support the development of these policies for management of the Internet space in the region and must use them when managing the registry. > I would also add that John Curran has the fiduciary responsibility of being the ARIN CEO and surely has been advised may times by the board of directors and legal counsel on the direction they are going. When he participates in this forum his fiduciary duty is to further the ARIN mission and follow guidelines laid out by his board, his legal advisors and then this community. It is obvious to me that there are just some things he cannot or should not say in this written community as a sharp attorney somewhere will pick it up and potentially use it for their own purposes which may be at odds with ARRINs state mission. To that end I doubt he would come out and say definitively something like "ARIN has no legal right to manage the IP blocks that legacy holders have" - even if that is what he and his board and his legal advisors have concluded. Obviously most of the members of this community are not privy to what is said in private behind closed doors. I would also add that reading between the lines it appears that ARIN is striving to keep the peace with Legacy holders and provide them at least some service and that of course is positive for all - but I would add that an even more positive relationship is possible and desirable. ARIN has provided service to legacy registrations without charge since its inception, and actually done quite a bit to make sure that existing address holders have trouble-free use of their address blocks just as they did before ARIN's inception. Yes, formal agreements are helpful as is the nominal $100 maintenance fee, but that is not required of any legacy holder who wants to just continue to use their address space. > Based on the fact that everyone involved will want to continue making the business decisions they decide is best for themselves concerning these "Legacy" blocks, I think it is prudent for ARIN to make the best of a difficult situation. The problem will slowly fix itself as IPv6 is adopted under ARIN agreements but I'm guessing that is ten years or so before IPv4 isn't needed much anymore. In the meantime, deciding to fight all of the "Legacy" holders isn't a winning proposition especially with the deep pockets and political clout out there - and the lack of a clearly enforceable agreement that has been successfully scrutinized by the courts. I see some folks advocating strongly in this community to reign in "legacy" holders - but no amount of Policies put in place by ARIN will ever solve this issue and it is futile for ARIN to create policies that a large percentage of the Internet "legacy" holders will just ignore. While you may not realize it, the conflict is actually being set into motion from the other direction; i.e. ARIN has been always been applying the community-developed policies to all entries in the registry, but now with the depletion of IPv4, folks have realized that ARIN's mission may reduce the monetization of their number resources depending on the particular transfer policies that are adopted. > I would propose that instead of fighting the "Legacy" holders, why doesn't ARIN just join them. I don't know what the costs are for ARIN to conduct their mission and I don't know if the revenue they get now pays all of their bills or not. The current fees cover the expenses, although there are valid questions of equity when some of those benefiting do not pay and therefore everyone else pays more. > I'm sure ARIN knows by now pretty much all of the issues that are keeping the "Legacy" holders from signing up. Change the agreement that ARIN asks "Legacy" holders to sign and remove ALL of the obstacles and objections of the legacy holders. Let the addresses be kept by them for free if they want, and let them transfer them if they want to for free or for a nominal administration charge, and remove all the reasons why they won't sign up now. That's an excellent idea, and we've actually revised the LRSA three times trying to get closer to that goal. Legacy holders without signing anything, but under an LRSA get a clear set of rights and services for a nominal annual maintenance fee. We have hundreds of signatories including all categories of legacy holders - About the only thing that ARIN hasn't done is said "Community-developed policies do not apply to your legacy resources", and again, it's because it is directly contrary to our founding and mission. This is the fundamental difference in perspective, and it is a non-trivial issue to resolve. In the meantime, the best we can hope for is that reasonable policies are set that treat all resource holders with dignity, equity, and respect. There has been a trend towards increasing transfer-friendly policies, and that much is encouraging. > Make them ARIN's friends and let them be a significant part of and add their voices and expertise to this community. I'll bet if reasonable optional fees were instituted, many would go ahead and pay them at least once. As long as ARIN's expenses are met ongoing, and everybody is included - everybody wins. I'm not sure the fees have ever been the issue, since they have been set to $100/year under the LRSA. The concept that the address blocks are subject to the policies of the registry on an ongoing basis is a significant concern for many legacy holders, no matter how benevolent those policies may be nor the ability to participate in their formation. > All of the "legacy" holders were early adopters and helped in their own way to build and pay for the building of the Internet. This is their compensation for that and therefore this is also fair to the folks who signed up with ARIN later on after the Internet was firmly established. Then as IPv4 winds down and IPv6 winds up this problem just goes away and ARIN now has a lot more friends and a lot less adversaries. I'm guessing I'm not the first to advocate doing this but in only two months being a member of this community, it is very obvious that this is the only solution that can ever work. I also hope that legacy-friendly fees and policies help keep the community together, but that might not be enough if the desired outcome by some is a "policy free zone" for their number resources. > One last thing. I'm guessing as folks read this their first inclination will be to pick this submission apart. Most likely I am wrong about certain things I've written and I'm sure there are folks who would be happy to pick it apart point by point and point that out. If that happens then the overall point of this submission has been missed! It is OK if I'm wrong in places and it is OK if I have opinions different than other members of this community. The one place I am not wrong though is my point in the last paragraph that it would be better to join forces with the Legacy holders than fight them and possibly lose - because if fighting them is chosen then someday very soon a court will make this decision for ARIN and this community - and very rarely does a court make everyone happy. Now I will go back to my real job of helping customers utilizing the Internet that I helped build in a small way. Hope I followed my own request for these submissions to be constructive. :-) Steven - I hope you don't take my comments as "picking apart" but more as an attempt to share perspective just as you've done in your excellent posting. Thanks again for taking the time to send your thoughts on this important topic! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 21:38:09 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:38:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: ,,,, >> ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that >> requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would >> have to do. > > > Reference please. There are other references (and references to the references), but the earliest I can easily find is at: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-April/020748.html Gary From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 21:43:21 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:43:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5FD8856F-23C7-469F-B43C-954D80577AD4@corp.arin.net> On Jun 21, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that >> requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would >> have to do. > > Reference please. Certainly - "ARIN President and CEO John Curran stated he was pleased that Microsoft has followed the Internet community's adopted policies for such transfers ..." FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 21 21:45:30 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:45:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that > requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would > have to do. ?AFAIK (and I'm only aware of what's been publicly posted here > to PPML and at public policy meetings) the only thing non-standard about the > Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the > RSA. ?And since the only real remaining difference between the two is the > fee schedule, that is definitely not a policy matter. Well, that and the supposed contractual assurance that the addresses can never be reclaimed for non-use. They had to need the addresses at some instant in time after which, according to the LRSA, that was no longer required. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 22:01:32 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:01:32 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> On Jun 21, 2012, at 9:45 PM, William Herrin wrote: > Well, that and the supposed contractual assurance that the addresses > can never be reclaimed for non-use. Bill - The most recent LRSA is available to everyone and provides such an assurance. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From hannigan at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 22:07:33 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:07:33 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 21, 2012, at 9:45 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> Well, that and the supposed contractual assurance that the addresses >> can never be reclaimed for non-use. > > Bill - > > ?The most recent LRSA is available to everyone and provides such an assurance. > Do we all have the option to sign the exact agreement that the buyer in the Nortel v4 address sale signed? Best, -M< From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 22:23:17 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:23:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On 6/21/12, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Steven Ryerse [snip] > to PPML and at public policy meetings) the only thing non-standard about > the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of > the RSA. And since the only real remaining difference between the two is > the fee schedule, that is definitely not a policy matter. Well, there is a policy matter, in that they signed a different agreement, even if the only difference was "fees"; it's still something different they were allowed to sign. The NRPM specifically indicates that annual fees maintenance fees are charged according to an ISP schedule or an end-user schedule... I find it a little bit suspect that MS were allowed to sign a LRSA on this; when transfers required signing the RSA, according to the NRPM, and the LRSA was a different agreement, then others were required to sign. Does ARIN treat all organizations that receive service equally, fair and non-discriminatively, OR are some resource holders allowed to agreement terms that provide them more protection or better treatment from ARIN than other organizations ? E.g. Did ARIN give Microsoft preferential treatment, or do all members have the option of signing the LRSA to transfer resources from a legacy holder? Is this option clearly shown somewhere on ARIN's website? > -Scott -- -JH From gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 22:47:02 2012 From: gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:47:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: .... > I find it a little bit suspect that MS were allowed to sign a LRSA on > this; ?when transfers required signing the RSA, according to the NRPM, > ?and the LRSA was a different agreement, ?then ?others were required > to sign. Since we are digging up the dead horse to start a new flogging, there were many (including the authors and many in the community) who had interpreted that the requirement was to be signing the (no prefix) RSA. But the alternative interpretation of *an* RSA, which included the LRSA, was determined to not be prohibited by the language of the NRPM. That was a lesson learned by the community. Gary From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 21 23:03:41 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:03:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <45184643-FBF5-45A3-845B-84D9F3ED16B6@corp.arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> <3E9C1278-DDC0-43B3-94D4-3142ACF6757E@corp.arin.net> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D0CD0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <45184643-FBF5-45A3-845B-84D9F3ED16B6@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:36 PM, John Curran wrote: > We issue IPv6 address blocks to those who request them and qualify... It'd be nice if the June 2012 registration cost of an IPv6 end user block was closer to the June 2012 value of an IPv6 end user block than it was to what might possibly become the June 2020 value of an IPv6 end user block. Of a surety it'd spawn faster uptake. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Jun 21 23:04:44 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:04:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D16C9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I got my info about the Microsoft deal mostly from the press and blogs and I acknowledge that those sources are not always accurate or complete. My question then John would be, when I apply for my 3 /24's next month thru your normal process, will I be able to sign the same deal as Microsoft got (again I've never read it) and will I be able to get the same terms Microsoft got? The press said they signed an LSRA. -----Original Message----- From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:23 PM To: Scott Leibrand Cc: Steven Ryerse; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry On 6/21/12, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Steven Ryerse [snip] > to PPML and at public policy meetings) the only thing non-standard > about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA > instead of the RSA. And since the only real remaining difference > between the two is the fee schedule, that is definitely not a policy matter. Well, there is a policy matter, in that they signed a different agreement, even if the only difference was "fees"; it's still something different they were allowed to sign. The NRPM specifically indicates that annual fees maintenance fees are charged according to an ISP schedule or an end-user schedule... I find it a little bit suspect that MS were allowed to sign a LRSA on this; when transfers required signing the RSA, according to the NRPM, and the LRSA was a different agreement, then others were required to sign. Does ARIN treat all organizations that receive service equally, fair and non-discriminatively, OR are some resource holders allowed to agreement terms that provide them more protection or better treatment from ARIN than other organizations ? E.g. Did ARIN give Microsoft preferential treatment, or do all members have the option of signing the LRSA to transfer resources from a legacy holder? Is this option clearly shown somewhere on ARIN's website? > -Scott -- -JH From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 23:16:19 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:16:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <34F2154B-A9E8-45AC-B620-CA70CB21BDF2@arin.net> On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:07 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Do we all have the option to sign the exact agreement that the buyer > in the Nortel v4 address sale signed? Feel free to suggest any changes that you desire to the LRSA and we'll review for inclusion in future revisions. Signing the exact agreement that Microsoft signed would be non-sensical unless you were part of that bankruptcy proceeding. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 23:18:47 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:18:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/19/12, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > I support this proposal. It provides clarification on an important issue. It is a step towards allowing and encouraging Legacy resource holders to maintain correct WHOIS listings. And does some to discourage "black market" covert "selling" or transferring legacy resources, without following established policy for resource transfers. Clarifying the matter, likely increases the certainty that transfer policies should be followed, and likely the perception of risk by any organization considering attempt to "acquire" number resources fraudulently in a manner not authorized by policy (E.g. Transfer not requested through RIR, no RSA signed, no justified need, "transfer" recipient wants resources for pure speculation/hoarding purposes). -- -JH From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 23:27:21 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:27:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > Does ARIN treat all organizations that receive service equally, fair > and non-discriminatively, OR are some resource holders allowed to > agreement terms that provide them more protection or better treatment > from ARIN than other organizations ? Jimmy - ARIN has made changes registration agreements as part of legal bankruptcy proceedings, just as we make changes to accomodate federal and state governments which require by law their own court and venue to be specified. This is an inevitable consequence of dealing with the legal system. If you find yourself in a similar bankruptcy proceeding, then we will respond accordingly but cannot commit as each case has unique aspects. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 21 23:40:21 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:40:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D16C9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D16C9@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Jun 21, 2012, at 11:04 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I got my info about the Microsoft deal mostly from the press and blogs and I acknowledge that those sources are not always accurate or complete. That might be the largest understatement of all time... > My question then John would be, when I apply for my 3 /24's next month thru your normal process, will I be able to sign the same deal as Microsoft got (again I've never read it) and will I be able to get the same terms Microsoft got? The press said they signed an LSRA. The short answer is "No", not unless you are in a court or bankruptcy proceeding. However, at this point I am not certain that is any material difference in terms between that and the revised LRSA and RSA agreements given the recent revisions that were made to each. Language was clarified in the LRSA and extended to the RSA that ARIN will only ask for utilization if the resource holder requests new resources from the free pool or as part of transfer, and lack of utilization shall not be a basis for revocation. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 22 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:53:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201206220453.q5M4r2xq018874@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 210 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 22 00:53:02 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 21.90% | 46 | 18.16% | 347142 | jcurran at arin.net 9.52% | 20 | 10.46% | 199925 | owen at delong.com 9.52% | 20 | 7.35% | 140506 | bill at herrin.us 5.71% | 12 | 5.61% | 107195 | farmer at umn.edu 3.81% | 8 | 7.02% | 134170 | kkargel at polartel.com 5.24% | 11 | 3.81% | 72852 | mysidia at gmail.com 4.29% | 9 | 3.93% | 75098 | mueller at syr.edu 3.33% | 7 | 3.94% | 75259 | jrhett at netconsonance.com 3.33% | 7 | 2.71% | 51814 | avri at acm.org 3.33% | 7 | 2.71% | 51746 | cgrundemann at gmail.com 0.95% | 2 | 4.89% | 93541 | mrmagic048 at hotmail.com 1.90% | 4 | 3.11% | 59454 | mlindsey at lb3law.com 2.86% | 6 | 2.00% | 38241 | hannigan at gmail.com 1.43% | 3 | 3.05% | 58345 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com 2.38% | 5 | 1.78% | 34001 | sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com 2.38% | 5 | 1.64% | 31431 | gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com 1.43% | 3 | 2.53% | 48435 | john.sweeting at twcable.com 1.90% | 4 | 1.86% | 35545 | lee at dilkie.com 1.90% | 4 | 1.50% | 28580 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.90% | 4 | 1.49% | 28515 | astrodog at gmx.com 1.43% | 3 | 1.35% | 25813 | springer at inlandnet.com 0.95% | 2 | 1.74% | 33251 | christoph.blecker at ubc.ca 1.43% | 3 | 1.23% | 23504 | info at arin.net 1.43% | 3 | 1.08% | 20668 | cengel at conxeo.com 0.95% | 2 | 1.03% | 19706 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com 0.95% | 2 | 0.92% | 17636 | ppml at rs.seastrom.com 0.95% | 2 | 0.90% | 17190 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 0.48% | 1 | 0.40% | 7684 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.48% | 1 | 0.38% | 7348 | cb.list6 at gmail.com 0.48% | 1 | 0.38% | 7328 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net 0.48% | 1 | 0.35% | 6664 | timothy.s.morizot at irs.gov 0.48% | 1 | 0.34% | 6486 | matthew at matthew.at 0.48% | 1 | 0.32% | 6071 | fearghas at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 210 |100.00% | 1911144 | Total From mysidia at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 01:30:58 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:30:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in theRegistry (William Herrin) In-Reply-To: <691C91F8-67E1-4D16-A62E-9077D9866520@delong.com> References: <20120620201903.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.16d9f126b7.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <691C91F8-67E1-4D16-A62E-9077D9866520@delong.com> Message-ID: On 6/20/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > Yes, but the exclusive right to use is ill-defined at best. Use requires a > context. Practically speaking... the legacy resource holders do have exclusive rights though. It is not inconsistent to say legacy resource holders DO have some exclusive rights, AND addressing policy still applies. The legacy holders have an exclusive right to be listed in the registry as holder of the resource, until such time as the resource is transferred or revoked by the registry. Nobody except the resource holder or the registry (ARIN) has a right to delete or change the registration; other arbitrary individuals on the internet are not allowed by policy to delete the registration, or register the resource to themself. The legacy holders also have an exclusive right due to addressing policy to request transfer of the registration by the registry. This results in (at the very least) a de-facto situation, where nobody else on the internet /should/ be assigning those resources to their equipment. And if some organization not listed in the registry /does/ intentionally start announcing the prefix that is first listed as registered to someone else, the result is likely to result in some kind of recourse against the organization not listed as registered. If you submit to a bankruptcy proceeding, one of the supposed items, an exclusive right, and there is paperwork that appears to substantiate that, such as documentation of "of a registration". It seems plausible that the court will accept that. A simple ruling by the court that there are some exclusive rights does not cause addressing policy to no longer apply Doesn't mean the rights are worldwide, or that unrelated parties are beholden to the exclusive right either. I can sell you an exclusive right to create a file named C:\abc.txt, but if you purchase that, it doesn't mean everyone else in the world is excluded from using that filename, only I am, because everyone else in the world didn't sign a contract under a pretect of transferring such a right > Owen -- -JH From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 22 09:34:08 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:34:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] LRSA announcement messaging In-Reply-To: References: <4FDF8C50.8070600@umn.edu> <358DCCEB-E07F-44DF-9E48-E2369B49E6BA@corp.arin.net> <4FDFDE1C.4010901@umn.edu> <8959a945-2fec-440a-aff9-1a8e36e0ca0b@email.android.com> <0AB8C624-BF15-41F2-8366-456C3305B7E6@corp.arin.net> <87027e4e-1d72-425e-bde9-f832f71ca358@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > John, > > Would it be possible for us to see the kinds of communications that > ARIN sends to legacy holders? Martin - Follow-up as requested. As part of the rollout of the new LRSA, we contacted each legacy registrant. We started the process in the fall of 2007 via postal mail and eventually moved to electronic mail in 2008 for cost management purposes. Sample copies of the messages used in the announcement are attached. Other than the announcement of the program to each legacy holder, we have not sent further communications directly to the legacy contacts about LRSA availability (although we have announced new versions of the LRSA on the various ARIN mailing lists.) FYI, /John === Late 2007, paper mailing > Subject: ARIN offers a Legacy Registration Services Agreement > > Hello, > > The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) now offers you a Legacy Registration Services Agreement(RSA). This agreement ensures your legacy resources the same services provided to thousands of other organizations who have received Internet number resources directly from ARIN since December 1997. The Legacy RSA contractually ensures that ARIN policies adopted after the contract is signed will not reduce or restrict the Legacy RSA address holder's contractual rights. > > In this spirit we are reaching out to you as an organization or individual in the ARIN service region that holds number resources not covered by a Registration Services Agreement with ARIN. We call these legacy number resources, IPv4 addresses or Autonomous System numbers that were issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997. > > I invite you to review the Legacy RSA and consider the benefits it offers. To view the Legacy RSA, complete the Legacy application, or view the FAQ, please visit http://www.arin.net/registration/legacy/. There is no application or initial fee associated with the Legacy RSA, only a $100 (USD) annual maintenance fee. However, fees may be waived if an organization voluntarily returns unused address space to ARIN. > > If you need further information or have questions about legacy number resources or the Legacy Registration Services Agreement please call the Registration Services Help Desk at 1-703-227-0550 or send e-mail to hostmaster at arin.net. If you have any legal questions, please contact ARIN General Counsel, Steve Ryan, at sryan at mwe.com. I too welcome any general comments you care to make regarding the Legacy RSA and can be reached at plzak at arin.net. > > Regards, > > Raymond A. Plzak > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) === 2008, electronic mailing > RE: <> > > Your organization is the registrant of legacy number resources in ARIN's > WHOIS database. Legacy resources are IPv4 addresses or Autonomous System > numbers that were issued by an Internet Registry (InterNIC or its > predecessors) prior to ARIN's inception on Dec. 22, 1997. In most cases, > the services provided by ARIN to maintain and update these legacy > resources in the WHOIS database are not currently governed by any > contractual agreement. > ARIN now offers a contract, called the Legacy Registration Services > Agreement (RSA) that specifically covers the registration services > provided for these legacy resources. Signing this Legacy RSA is completely > voluntary. Signing the Legacy RSA does offer several benefits to your > organization: > > * The Legacy RSA establishes a contractual basis for the continued receipt > of registration services currently provided by ARIN to your organization > for your legacy number resources. > > * The Legacy RSA ensures your organization will continue to receive the > same services, including inclusion in the WHOIS directory, that ARIN > provides to thousands of other organizations who have received Internet > number resources directly from ARIN since 1997. > > * The Legacy RSA ensures that ARIN policies adopted after the contract is > signed will not reduce or restrict the contractual rights provided to your > organization in the Legacy RSA. > > We invite you to review the Legacy RSA and consider the benefits it > offers. To view the Legacy RSA, complete the Legacy application, or view > the FAQ, please visit http://www.arin.net/registration/legacy/. > If you need further information or have questions about legacy number > resources or the Legacy Registration Services Agreement please call the > Registration Services Help Desk at 1-703-227-0660 or send e-mail to > hostmaster at arin.net. > Regards, > Raymond A. Plzak > President & CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From cgrundemann at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 12:10:20 2012 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:10:20 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 and WHOIS - Work Needed? In-Reply-To: <8662amknk1.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <8662amknk1.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Chris Grundemann writes: > >> Hail PPML! >> >> Many of you have likely seen this article (or a similar one[1][2]) by >> now: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/ >> >> The question it seems to raise for us is: "Will ARIN and the other >> RIRs maintain accurate WHOIS for IPv6 long term, or will law >> enforcement feel the need to step in directly?" > > The issue in this article seems to boil down to an assumption that > coming back to ARIN every 15 years for more space is a step away from > goodness when it comes to keeping whois data up to date. > > There's no difference in billing interval for IPv6 (vs existing IPv4) > and everyone's under RSA so everyone gets a ping in the form of a bill > and a check. ?That represents a huge step forward from the status quo > for IPv6. ?My guess is that the aggregate accuracy of whois data in 10 > years will be "somewhat better" to "much better" than IPv4 is today, > but not miraculously perfect. > > No NAT means a prayer of figuring out exactly whose computer was doing > misdeeds (even with privacy hacks, far better than one pipe). ?The > Bureau's gotta be excited about that, at least I hope they are. > > The thing these guys need to be worried about is CGN. ?You can't get a > search warrant issued for a whole zip code. ?For better or worse, IPv6 > is the way out of the woods. > > My take is that the article is much ado about nothing. ?Wish Declan > had called someone for deep dive rather than sound bites. ?Then again > that may not sell advertising hits. I went ahead and wrote up the deep dive, from my perspective at least. As I state in the conclusion; there is still work to be done in this area, IMO. Feel free to throw stones: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120622_is_ipv6_a_boon_to_criminals_and_foe_to_the_fbi/ ~Chris > > -r > -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 22 12:38:42 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:38:42 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D0CD0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <13D0C567-29FB-478F-8F49-50ACD6940886@corp.arin.net> <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB2C14@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> <3E9C1278-DDC0-43B3-94D4-3142ACF6757E@corp.arin.net> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D0CD0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFB9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Steven It's great to hear from you. Virtually everything you say is reasonable and, as far as I can tell, correct. It's very nice to see this kind of a corrective, because staff and various ARIN board or AC members often try to speak for people like you. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:42 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: [arin-announce] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to > All Resources in the Registry > > I have only been a full-fledged member of this community for a couple of > months. This is the first post I have ever made to this community > forum. It has been very interesting reading all of the email generated > by this community on various subjects. I am not sure what all of the > "rules" are that have been set up before me, but if one does not already > exist, I would ask that one be set up that states that all submissions > be of a clear constructive nature and be in a constructive format - and > provide the reason(s) why a member advocates a particular position or > change plus the benefit to all. Certainly some submissions do exactly > this but some do not and the ones that do not are mostly a waste of > everyone's time for anyone who cares to follow this community. > > I am also one of those rebellious "Legacy" Internet Address holders as I > got a /24 for myself on 3/14/1994. At that time I routinely got Class C > Internet addresses assigned for my clients. I'm guessing that over the From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 22 12:40:29 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:40:29 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFCD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> What he said... > -----Original Message----- > If ARIN ever decides not to list a transferred IP block between big > legacy holders that refuse to sign any ARIN agreement, it is Armageddon > time. That would mean that ARIN wouldn't handle 100% of the existing IP > listings in its database anymore - and now it isn't serving 100% of > North America which is of course its mission. Consequently, not listing > 100% might get ARIN a black eye by the whole Internet community > worldwide since they couldn't rely on ARIN fully anymore like they did > up until that day. There would be a huge court battle and as my > original post concludes, nobody might like the outcome that comes from a > judge. Everybody loses. In case anybody doesn't know, judges are all [Milton L Mueller] snip > Why on earth would ARIN ever want to take that chance. From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 22 12:45:54 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:45:54 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I love this understatement from Scott: "the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA." To put it more directly, ARIN abandon its policies. We all know what happened here. ARIN begged MSFT not to go ahead with the transaction without acknowledging its policies. MSFT was offered an LRSA instead of being required to sign an RSA, as the 8.3 transfer policy clearly states it should, as part of the bargaining process. MSFT agreed to do that, even though it didn't have to, to be a good citizen. Problem now is, major legacy buyers are in a situation of individually bargaining with ARIN; there is no generally applicable policy. Yeah, that's "non-standard" From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:20 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: I would like to be treated the same as Microsoft and sign the same agreement they got to sign from ARIN (I've never read it) and not have to prove I need the addresses like they didn't have to. This means I think everyone should be treated equally by ARIN in every transfer. Of course if Microsoft has to prove they need them then of course I'd be happy to prove I need them too - but I don't think Microsoft did have to prove their need and ARIN ended up being a party to the transaction. ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would have to do. AFAIK (and I'm only aware of what's been publicly posted here to PPML and at public policy meetings) the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA. And since the only real remaining difference between the two is the fee schedule, that is definitely not a policy matter. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 22 13:00:10 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:00:10 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 22, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: MSFT was offered an LRSA instead of being required to sign an RSA, as the 8.3 transfer policy clearly states it should, as part of the bargaining process. MSFT agreed to do that, even though it didn?t have to, to be a good citizen. Problem now is, major legacy buyers are in a situation of individually bargaining with ARIN; there is no generally applicable policy. Milton - Please take the time to research your 'facts' Microsoft's use of resources is bound the ARIN policies and they did qualify per needs-assessment just as any other transfer recipient. I am not certain what terms and conditions parties would want to bargain for, but if you can express them in clear language we'd be happy to consider incorporating the terms into future revisions of the LRSA, Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at nationwideinc.com Fri Jun 22 13:06:37 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:06:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca><5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MA IL.eclipse-networks.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Also not standard: 8.3 called for transfer from the seller to ARIN to be specifically transferred to the buyer. Did Nortel ever transfer addresses to ARIN? 8.3 called for a single block And lest we all forget, stupid, stupid Microsoft paid $7.5 million for addresses which ARIN says they could have got from ARIN for free, because they passed the justification test. It?s been over a year, and that transaction still smells. From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:45 PM To: Scott Leibrand ; Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry I love this understatement from Scott: ?the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA.? To put it more directly, ARIN abandon its policies. We all know what happened here. ARIN begged MSFT not to go ahead with the transaction without acknowledging its policies. MSFT was offered an LRSA instead of being required to sign an RSA, as the 8.3 transfer policy clearly states it should, as part of the bargaining process. MSFT agreed to do that, even though it didn?t have to, to be a good citizen. Problem now is, major legacy buyers are in a situation of individually bargaining with ARIN; there is no generally applicable policy. Yeah, that?s ?non-standard? From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:20 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: I would like to be treated the same as Microsoft and sign the same agreement they got to sign from ARIN (I've never read it) and not have to prove I need the addresses like they didn't have to. This means I think everyone should be treated equally by ARIN in every transfer. Of course if Microsoft has to prove they need them then of course I'd be happy to prove I need them too - but I don't think Microsoft did have to prove their need and ARIN ended up being a party to the transaction. ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would have to do. AFAIK (and I'm only aware of what's been publicly posted here to PPML and at public policy meetings) the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA. And since the only real remaining difference between the two is the fee schedule, that is definitely not a policy matter. -Scott -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 22 13:09:03 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:09:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <34F2154B-A9E8-45AC-B620-CA70CB21BDF2@arin.net> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> <34F2154B-A9E8-45AC-B620-CA70CB21BDF2@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:16 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 21, 2012, at 10:07 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> Do we all have the option to sign the exact agreement that the buyer >> in the Nortel v4 address sale signed? > > Feel free to suggest any changes that you desire to the LRSA and > we'll review for inclusion in future revisions. Signing the exact > agreement that Microsoft signed would be non-sensical unless you > were part of that bankruptcy proceeding. Hi John, That's a cuirious statement. Was the LRSA Microsoft signed any different than the LRSAs ARIN has published? Thanks, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 22 13:15:15 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:15:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> <34F2154B-A9E8-45AC-B620-CA70CB21BDF2@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: > Hi John, > > That's a cuirious statement. Was the LRSA Microsoft signed any > different than the LRSAs ARIN has published? Bill - As noted before, you'd need to ask Microsoft about their LRSA as it is subject to NDA just as every other member. Thanks, /John From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 22 13:23:25 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:23:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MA> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3152EB1D-CE22-4569-9D95-1A1850A58A76@corp.arin.net> On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Mike Burns wrote: ... Microsoft paid $7.5 million for addresses which ARIN says they could have got from ARIN for free, because they passed the justification test. Mike - If requested resources from the free pool every 90 days, and if the pool had held out, then they may have achieved the same goal. Many parties seem attracted to the certainty from having a large block of number resources to meet their future business needs; in addition to Microsoft, the following additional transfers have been transferred from bankruptcy estates: Borders Group, Inc., et al., (S.D.NY) 12/20/2011 1 /16 Teknowledge Corporation (N.D.CA) 1/24/2012 1/16 Northern Telecom Canada, Ltd. (Nortel II ? Canada) 2/24/2012 2/16?s Bell-Northern Research (Nortel II ? Canada) 2/29/2012 1/14 2/29/2012 1/14 4/10/2012 2/16?s You'd have to ask the recipients why the value receiving number resources through transfer; ARIN simply processes the requests per policy. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 22 13:27:18 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:27:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> <34F2154B-A9E8-45AC-B620-CA70CB21BDF2@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> That's a cuirious statement. Was the LRSA Microsoft signed any >> different than the LRSAs ARIN has published? > > As noted before, you'd need to ask Microsoft about their > LRSA as it is subject to NDA just as every other member. So it's not the standard adhesion contract LRSA you have published on the web site... because if it was the same, the text of the agreement would have already been a matter of public record. It's actually a custom contract written for Microsoft that ARIN decided to call an LRSA. Which kind of makes the claim that Microsoft signed "the LRSA" a little white lie... Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 22 13:43:33 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:43:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> <34F2154B-A9E8-45AC-B620-CA70CB21BDF2@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:27 PM, William Herrin wrote: > So it's not the standard adhesion contract LRSA you have published on > the web site... because if it was the same, the text of the agreement > would have already been a matter of public record. It's actually a > custom contract written for Microsoft that ARIN decided to call an > LRSA. > > Which kind of makes the claim that Microsoft signed "the LRSA" a > little white lie... Good Afternoon Bill - It truly is a honor to cover the same questions again and again, but as I am here to serve this community, I guess that it's good to be needed. As I noted _yesterday_, we sometimes have to make changes to the agreements as a result of being in s court proceeding - "ARIN has made changes registration agreements as part of legal bankruptcy proceedings, just as we make changes to accomodate federal and state governments which require by law their own court and venue to be specified. This is an inevitable consequence of dealing with the legal system. If you find yourself in a similar bankruptcy proceeding, then we will respond accordingly but cannot commit as each case has unique aspects." Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mike at nationwideinc.com Fri Jun 22 13:49:21 2012 From: mike at nationwideinc.com (Mike Burns) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:49:21 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin theRegistry In-Reply-To: <3152EB1D-CE22-4569-9D95-1A1850A58A76@corp.arin.net> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca><5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MA ><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3152EB1D-CE22-4569-9D95-1A1850A58A76@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4308409CF86E4438B3F61EDB5A04AD5C@MPC> John, Care to answer this direct question vis a vis how ARIN policy was applied to the Nortel deal: Did Nortel ever return the addresses to ARIN to be transferred specifically to Microsoft? Regards, Mike From: John Curran Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 1:23 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin theRegistry On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Mike Burns wrote: ... Microsoft paid $7.5 million for addresses which ARIN says they could have got from ARIN for free, because they passed the justification test. Mike - If requested resources from the free pool every 90 days, and if the pool had held out, then they may have achieved the same goal. Many parties seem attracted to the certainty from having a large block of number resources to meet their future business needs; in addition to Microsoft, the following additional transfers have been transferred from bankruptcy estates: Borders Group, Inc., et al., (S.D.NY) 12/20/2011 1 /16 Teknowledge Corporation (N.D.CA) 1/24/2012 1/16 Northern Telecom Canada, Ltd. (Nortel II ? Canada) 2/24/2012 2/16?s Bell-Northern Research (Nortel II ? Canada) 2/29/2012 1/14 2/29/2012 1/14 4/10/2012 2/16?s You'd have to ask the recipients why the value receiving number resources through transfer; ARIN simply processes the requests per policy. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 22 13:49:50 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:49:50 -0600 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MA IL.eclipse-networks.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <15C7D838-1EB8-4D5C-B18F-B198229E5894@delong.com> Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:06 AM, "Mike Burns" wrote: > Also not standard: > > 8.3 called for transfer from the seller to ARIN to be specifically transferred to the buyer. Did Nortel ever transfer addresses to ARIN? > 8.3 called for a single block Actually, due to a language error, 8.3 called for the justification to be expressed in a single block, but we as a community failed to communicate our intent in the letter of the policy. Yes, the clear community intent was for the transfer to be a single block. However, in spite of that clear intent, the actual policy did not manage to state our intent. ARIN did the right thing in following the policy as written rather than attempting to apply fuzzy logic around what the community intended to say. The risks of ARIN second-guessing the communities wording would be far more damaging, IMHO. Unfortunately, subsequent attempts to correct the language were met with strong resistance and did not achieve consensus. Instead, we further defanged transfer policy by removing the single aggregate phrasing completely. If anyone wants to propose policy to correctly restore that feature to 8.3, I would support it. > > And lest we all forget, stupid, stupid Microsoft paid $7.5 million for addresses which ARIN says they could have got from ARIN for free, because they passed the justification test. > Did they? Or did they forgive $7.5 million in bad debt? I honestly don't know which is the actual case, but, while there are many adjectives I would routinely use to describe said organization, stupid is not one of them. In the latter case, one could argue that they got quite the bargain as they arguably received full value instead of some (likely small) fraction of said debt as it was discharged in bankruptcy. > It?s been over a year, and that transaction still smells. To some extent, yes, but as more information comes out, I believe it smells less and less. I think the biggest problem with this one was the lack of transparency. I am inclined to believe (though I haven't seen it) that had ARIN been able to release the actual text of the agreement signed by the receiving party, there would be much less kerfuffle about this. Owen > > > > From: Milton L Mueller > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:45 PM > To: Scott Leibrand ; Steven Ryerse > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin the Registry > > I love this understatement from Scott: ?the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA.? > > To put it more directly, ARIN abandon its policies. We all know what happened here. ARIN begged MSFT not to go ahead with the transaction without acknowledging its policies. > > MSFT was offered an LRSA instead of being required to sign an RSA, as the 8.3 transfer policy clearly states it should, as part of the bargaining process. MSFT agreed to do that, even though it didn?t have to, to be a good citizen. > > Problem now is, major legacy buyers are in a situation of individually bargaining with ARIN; there is no generally applicable policy. > > Yeah, that?s ?non-standard? > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:20 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > > > I would like to be treated the same as Microsoft and sign the same agreement they got to sign from ARIN (I've never read it) and not have to prove I need the addresses like they didn't have to. This means I think everyone should be treated equally by ARIN in every transfer. Of course if Microsoft has to prove they need them then of course I'd be happy to prove I need them too - but I don't think Microsoft did have to prove their need and ARIN ended up being a party to the transaction. > > ARIN has publicly stated that Microsoft had to follow the policy that requires needs justification, just as any other transfer recipient would have to do. AFAIK (and I'm only aware of what's been publicly posted here to PPML and at public policy meetings) the only thing non-standard about the Nortel-Microsoft transfer was that Microsoft signed the LRSA instead of the RSA. And since the only real remaining difference between the two is the fee schedule, that is definitely not a policy matter. > > -Scott > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 22 14:00:13 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:00:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resourcesin theRegistry In-Reply-To: <4308409CF86E4438B3F61EDB5A04AD5C@MPC> References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca><5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MA ><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD218DFE2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3152EB1D-CE22-4569-9D95-1A1850A58A76@corp.arin.net> <4308409CF86E4438B3F61EDB5A04AD5C@MPC> Message-ID: <1A8DA096-F952-446E-9AFC-452AB163E5B5@arin.net> On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Mike Burns wrote: Did Nortel ever return the addresses to ARIN to be transferred specifically to Microsoft? Mike - You'd need to ask Nortel what they think; we certainly issued the transferred resources specifically to Microsoft, and this was made possible because Nortel consented to the changes we required to the Revised Order and Amended Sale Agreement. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Fri Jun 22 16:13:53 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:13:53 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FE4D201.3050002@umn.edu> On 6/19/12 16:18 CDT, William Herrin wrote: > On 6/19/12, David Farmer wrote: >> On 6/19/12 15:00 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >>> On 6/19/12, ARIN wrote: >>>> ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry >>>> >>>> Add as a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 1; >>>> >>>> ARIN is the Internet number registry for its service region and ARIN >>>> number resource policies apply to all resources in the ARIN registry, >>>> including those resources issued from a predecessor registry in the >>>> Internet Registry system. >>> >>> I'll join the lawsuit if this policy is adopted. Oppose. >> >> Is the concept completely an non-starter and unreasonable? > > Yes. > >> Are there >> policies missing that you think are necessary before this is reasonable? > > No. In my opinion, ARIN lacks legal standing to make involuntary > changes to an in-use legacy registration. Period. It's not even about > whether it would be reasonable for ARIN to have such standing. Policy > be damned, they do not have it. > >> Are there policies that you think shouldn't apply to Legacy Resources? >> Do you believe there are any policy that should apply to Legacy >> Resources? > > I have been satisfied with ARIN's practice of only recording transfers > of addresses if the new registration falls under then-current ARIN > policy and contracts. > > Given the way the court has ruled in the past half decade, I'm not > convinced ARIN actually has the right to refuse to record a change. To > my knowledge no judge has ever reached a declaration that they do > while several have reached declarations that more or less state that > they do not. Nevertheless, it would not upset me to discover that ARIN > does have that right. So are you saying that ARIN can apply no policy and has no authority to refuse changes to records for Legacy Registrations? Ok then I will happily put in a request to change on of the several /8 not currently covered under contract to my name then. Your own statements belie the fact that the registry only has value unless only the true registrant is allowed to make changes to their records. This directly implies at least some authority and the necessary policies to direct that authority must exist. ARIN must have at least the authority to refuse improper updates and some policy is needed to define what proper updates are, at the very least. Otherwise everyone looses. The value we all want the rights to, only comes from the uniqueness and control of the assignments in the registry. And that uniqueness is only guaranteed through coordination and cooperation, at least some minimal authority to ensure control of the registry necessary to protect the registrations. Without that authority and associated policies, the only value the Internet has is the scrap value of all the mineral used to build the equipment and cables that make up the physical embodiment of the Internet. Because without that coordination and uniqueness created by the registry system the Internet stops passing bits and all the economic value it creates vaporizes. As for the courts, I suspect they will easily recognize the true facts and not want to disrupt things too much, especially the bankruptcy courts, there whole purpose is to get value for the creditors. That value comes from the coordination of the registry, which is only possible if the registry has authority and policies that direct how that authority is used. Disrupt that too much and you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs that they want to return to the creditors. Everyone has to realize ARIN has to have authority and the necessary policies to direct that authority, otherwise without it all resource holders rights are meaningless, including legacy resource holders. So that leads us back to the true purpose of this mailing list what should those policies be? I'm pleading with you, please stop asking me to divine meaning from the goat entrails call court orders. I have a strong stomach but not that strong. :-(*) -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 22 17:24:05 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:24:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> <34F2154B-A9E8-45AC-B620-CA70CB21BDF2@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:43 PM, John Curran wrote: > It truly is a honor to cover the same questions again and > again, but as I am here to serve this community, Hi John, Sorry for being late to the party. For what it's worth, your willingness to keep subjecting yourself to an unmoderated public forum impresses the heck out of me. I have never seen an official willing to engage with the public the way you have. I wish more would; we'd have better governance. > ?As I noted _yesterday_, we sometimes have to make changes to > ?the agreements as a result of being in s court proceeding - Oh, Okay. So when you said that ARIN insists that transfers only happen according to the terms of the LRSA, what you really meant is that ARIN insists that transfers happen according to the closest custom contract the buyer can be wheedled in to. ARIN will then proceed to call that custom contract an LRSA and will keep it secret. Since it's subject to the court, there is no minimum inclusion of the terms in the published LRSA that ARIN can guarantee. And like everybody else, signatories must follow all number policies... that the contract says they have to. When you put it that way, your position is much more consistent with your predecessor's assertion that ARIN had no authority over legacy addresses. Thanks, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 22 17:29:57 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:29:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: <4FE4D201.3050002@umn.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FE0A066.4030902@arin.net> <4FE0E3B8.7070403@umn.edu> <4FE4D201.3050002@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:13 PM, David Farmer wrote: > On 6/19/12 16:18 CDT, William Herrin wrote: >> I have been satisfied with ARIN's practice of only recording transfers >> of addresses if the new registration falls under then-current ARIN >> policy and contracts. >> >> Given the way the court has ruled in the past half decade, I'm not >> convinced ARIN actually has the right to refuse to record a change. To >> my knowledge no judge has ever reached a declaration that they do >> while several have reached declarations that more or less state that >> they do not. Nevertheless, it would not upset me to discover that ARIN >> does have that right. > > So are you saying that ARIN can apply no policy and has no authority to > refuse changes to records for Legacy Registrations? Ok then I will > happily put in a request to change on of the several /8 not currently > covered under contract to my name then. Hi David, Obviously that's not a correct way to interpret what I said. For one thing, I said that the question ARIN's authority and responsibilities during legacy address transfers is not quite settled. For another, IF it is true that ARIN lacks authority to refuse changes then that applies to changes requested by the lawful owner of the asset. Who that is would be a question of legal fact, not of ARIN policy. That would also imply that ARIN has no authority to make changes unless asked to by the lawful owner of the asset. That last is almost exactly what ARIN President and CEO Ray Plzak told the Kremen court in 2006. > Everyone has to realize ARIN has to have authority and the necessary > policies to direct that authority No, it doesn't have to, and no everyone doesn't. After the initial allocation from the free pool, ARIN could function very effectively as merely the recorder and reporter of fact with all other matters settled under common law. As a community we've asked ARIN to do more than that. We've asked them to protect the BGP table. We've asked them to dissuade speculators from treating IPv4 as a commodity. And we've asked them to requiring detailed reporting from ISPs. Maybe that's wise. But never mistake the way we do things for the only functional way to do things. > I'm pleading with you, please stop asking me to divine meaning from the goat > entrails call[ed] court orders. ?I have a strong stomach but not that strong. > ?:-(*) Sadly, you're out of luck. IPv4 addresses have value now. Real monetary value. That means the courts are going to decide. And any policy which is out of step with their decisions will tend to malfunction. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From kkargel at polartel.com Fri Jun 22 17:46:57 2012 From: kkargel at polartel.com (Kevin Kargel) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:46:57 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry In-Reply-To: References: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FABB6A4@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010F1D1437@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68A020EB-5F24-4454-B1DF-688D49D43BAB@corp.arin.net> <34F2154B-A9E8-45AC-B620-CA70CB21BDF2@arin.net> Message-ID: <8695009A81378E48879980039EEDAD28012075D4B1@MAIL1.polartel.local> I am very surprised that I am actually starting to agree that LRSA and RSA contract versions should be public record. How can we tell if members are being treated fairly and equitably if the details are kept secret? If an entity's dealings are impartial then there is no reason to keep them behind closed doors. If there are usable versions of *RSA that offer a business advantage then I want one of those too. At the very least sterilized (names removed) copies of all utilized versions of LRSA and RSA (including addenda and codicils, additions and redactions) should be published for examination, even if they are not tied to specific parties. We don't necessarily need to know which version a particular entity is party to, but we should be able to find out what is contained in various versions of active agreements. This is perhaps a knee jerk reaction, but it is making more and more sense to me. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 4:24 PM > To: John Curran > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in > the Registry > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:43 PM, John Curran wrote: > > It truly is a honor to cover the same questions again and > > again, but as I am here to serve this community, > > Hi John, > > Sorry for being late to the party. For what it's worth, your > willingness to keep subjecting yourself to an unmoderated public forum > impresses the heck out of me. I have never seen an official willing to > engage with the public the way you have. I wish more would; we'd have > better governance. > > > > ?As I noted _yesterday_, we sometimes have to make changes to > > ?the agreements as a result of being in s court proceeding - > > Oh, Okay. So when you said that ARIN insists that transfers only > happen according to the terms of the LRSA, what you really meant is > that ARIN insists that transfers happen according to the closest > custom contract the buyer can be wheedled in to. > > ARIN will then proceed to call that custom contract an LRSA and will > keep it secret. Since it's subject to the court, there is no minimum > inclusion of the terms in the published LRSA that ARIN can guarantee. > And like everybody else, signatories must follow all number > policies... that the contract says they have to. > > When you put it that way, your position is much more consistent with > your predecessor's assertion that ARIN had no authority over legacy > addresses. > > Thanks, > Bill > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4935 bytes Desc: not available URL: From info at arin.net Tue Jun 26 14:46:53 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:46:53 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Proposal Originator: Jeff Mehlenbacher Proposal Version: 1 Date: 26 June 2012 Proposal type: Modify Policy term: Permanent Policy statement: Current Policy Statement: 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 24 months. Proposed Policy Statement 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 60 months. Rationale: The IPv4 transfer market is a necessary vehicle to effectively reallocate from those with excess to those with need. The ARIN community has spoken regarding the importance of maintaining a needs-based justification system for all 8.3 Specified Transfers. However, 24 months need is far too short a planning horizon for potential buyers contemplating a significant financial transaction which ensures business continuity. For both sellers and buyers, increasing from 24 to 60 months promotes considerably more certainty for transaction approval. Such certainty has been repeatedly expressed as the single greatest requirement for allocating human (business, legal, administrative) and financial resources in a legitimate transfer process. Timetable for implementation: Immediate From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net Tue Jun 26 14:51:43 2012 From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:51:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:46 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 > Specified Transfers > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 > Specified Transfers > > Proposal Originator: Jeff Mehlenbacher > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Date: 26 June 2012 > > Proposal type: Modify > > Policy term: Permanent > > Policy statement: > > Current Policy Statement: > 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the > ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in > whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational > recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA > by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the > need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current > ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 24 months. > > Proposed Policy Statement > 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the > ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in > whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational > recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA > by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the > need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current > ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 60 months. > > Rationale: > The IPv4 transfer market is a necessary vehicle to effectively reallocate > from those with excess to those with need. ?The ARIN community has spoken > regarding the importance of maintaining a needs-based justification system > for all 8.3 Specified Transfers. However, 24 months need is far too short a > planning horizon for potential buyers contemplating a significant financial > transaction which ensures business continuity. > > For both sellers and buyers, increasing from 24 to 60 months promotes > considerably more certainty for transaction approval. ?Such certainty has > been repeatedly expressed as the single greatest requirement for allocating > human (business, legal, administrative) and financial resources in a > legitimate transfer process. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. I am substantially in favor of increasing the planning horizon, but we should consider doing so incrementally. 24 months is good, 36 months might be better. I feel 60 months could encourage stockpiling where what we really need to be doing is ushering IPv6 transition. -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP President, Black Lotus Communications mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net From info at arin.net Tue Jun 26 15:38:38 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:38:38 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - June 2012 Message-ID: <4FEA0FBE.9070205@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 21 June 2012 and made decisions about several draft policies and proposals. The AC abandoned the following proposals: ARIN-prop-168 Promote 4byte ASN Usage ARIN-prop-170 Transfer of Number Resources in case of Bankruptcy ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources The AC provides the following statements about these proposals: "The AC felt that ARIN-prop-168 was overly complex, and that it was unclear how the proposal would accomplish the stated goal of "Promoting 4byte ASN Usage". Based on that assessment, the lack of support on PPML, and confirmation from ARIN staff that no policy changes are necessary for an organization to request and receive a 4-byte ASN, the ARIN AC chose to abandon ARIN-prop-168." "Based on feedback from PPML and from the proposal originator, the ARIN AC chose to abandon ARIN-prop-170. The proposal would not have resulted in an actual policy change, but would simply have codified existing staff practice. In addition, after the recent adoption of 2012-3 ASN transfers, the AC saw little need for further policy in this area." "Based on the strong opposition to and weak support for proposal 171 expressed on the PPML along with the concerns expressed by staff in the clarity and understanding, the AC abandoned proposal 171." "Based on opposition to the proposal from PPML, ongoing discussions about the linkage of Proposal 172 to Proposal 171, and possible future needs for a definition such as was included in Proposal 172, the AC decided to abandon Proposal 172, with intent to re-address the issues raised therein at a later date." The AC abandoned proposals 168, 170, 171 and 172. Anyone dissatisfied with these decisions may initiate a petition. The petition to advance a proposal would be the "Discussion Petition." The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From farmer at umn.edu Tue Jun 26 17:33:14 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:33:14 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FEA2A9A.60907@umn.edu> On 6/26/12 13:51 CDT, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:46 PM, ARIN wrote: >> ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 >> Specified Transfers .... >> Proposed Policy Statement >> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients >> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the >> ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in >> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational >> recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA >> by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the >> need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current >> ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 60 months. >> .... > > I am substantially in favor of increasing the planning horizon, but we > should consider doing so incrementally. 24 months is good, 36 months > might be better. I feel 60 months could encourage stockpiling where > what we really need to be doing is ushering IPv6 transition. I'm probably also OK with extending extending the supply window beyond 24 months, at the very least having the discussion. 60 months makes me a little queasy, but as far as I concerned its not out of the question. Something that might help make the 60 month figure more palatable would be some research, modeling, or estimates on the amount of potential supply of underutilized address space that is available and the potential demand. Just some quick eyeballing of Geoff Huston's graphs at ipv4.potaroo.net, there has been about 50 /8s that have been allocated globally over the past 5 years. Also, there is something like the equilivant of 50 /8s unrouted. So, is there really a 60 month global supply, even a major fraction it? Maybe, at least by my quick eyeballing. I'm not saying there is, someone needs to do some real modeling, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem impossible. This is the kind of information that would help justify extending to a 36, 48, or 60 month window. So I'll say, I think this is a good discussion to have. I'm skeptical of 60 months. I can probably support the general concept of extending the window. However, some modeling of supply and demand might help justify the bigger windows to a broader segment of the community. Thanks for submitting this, and I hope we can have a good discussion. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 26 17:53:37 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:53:37 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> Message-ID: Opposed as written. Seriously? 24 months was a bad enough idea. @ 60 months, justifications are more fiction than fact. Can any of us say (with a straight face) that our network today looks like we expected it to 5 years ago? Didn't think so. Suggested amendment: Replace 60 with 12. Then I would support the policy. Owen On Jun 26, 2012, at 11:46 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > > Proposal Originator: Jeff Mehlenbacher > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Date: 26 June 2012 > > Proposal type: Modify > > Policy term: Permanent > > Policy statement: > > Current Policy Statement: > 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 24 months. > > Proposed Policy Statement > 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 60 months. > > Rationale: > The IPv4 transfer market is a necessary vehicle to effectively reallocate from those with excess to those with need. The ARIN community has spoken regarding the importance of maintaining a needs-based justification system for all 8.3 Specified Transfers. However, 24 months need is far too short a planning horizon for potential buyers contemplating a significant financial transaction which ensures business continuity. > > For both sellers and buyers, increasing from 24 to 60 months promotes considerably more certainty for transaction approval. Such certainty has been repeatedly expressed as the single greatest requirement for allocating human (business, legal, administrative) and financial resources in a legitimate transfer process. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From ikiris at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 17:59:19 2012 From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:59:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> Message-ID: Opposed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 26 18:20:59 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:20:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:46 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 > Specified Transfers > [...] > need for such resources in the amount which they can justify under current > ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be utilized within 60 months. OPPOSED at this time. I would like to reconsider this proposal or another like it approximately 12 months after the exhaustion of the ARIN free pool. The potential risks this poses for the remaining free pool have been discussed ad nauseum. Another concern is this: Unless you're in a *very* well established business, 5-year projections are based on major guesswork. This is doubly so since the not-easily-predicted uptake of IPv6 will have a major impact on the continued demand for IPv4 over the next 5 to 10 years. Even if you happen to be a very good guesser, demonstrating the credibility of that guess ahead of time will be nigh impossible. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Tue Jun 26 21:11:17 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:11:17 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FEA5DB5.6060108@burnttofu.net> A few months ago, I floated the idea of extending the time horizon for 8.3 transfers to 36 months. The only comment I got back was an AC member (possibly speaking for himself only) making the valid point that we should see how things go at 24 months. I agreed at the time. 2011-12 extended the needs window to 24 months and it was implemented just about four and a half months ago. Given the short timeframe, I am having a hard time understanding the rationale for the proposal; specifically how the 24-month window creates significant uncertainty, or, more importantly, how we know it to be so. I am sure that a registered STLS Facilitator like Jeff has a better window into that issue that I do, but I can't imagine it's a good enough window to draw such a conclusion. (It's worth noting that at my most recent job, I was hired on to a 24-month contract, with no guarantee of re-appointment at the time of my hiring. Contrary to the implications of the rationale, 24-month time horizons appear to be quite frequent in free markets.) Opposed as written. michael On 06/26/12 11:46, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 > Specified Transfers > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 > Specified Transfers > > Proposal Originator: Jeff Mehlenbacher > > Proposal Version: 1 > > Date: 26 June 2012 > > Proposal type: Modify > > Policy term: Permanent > > Policy statement: > > Current Policy Statement: > 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within > the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource > holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified > organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be > received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and > can demonstrate the need for such resources in the amount which they can > justify under current ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be > utilized within 24 months. > > Proposed Policy Statement > 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within > the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource > holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified > organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be > received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and > can demonstrate the need for such resources in the amount which they can > justify under current ARIN policies showing how the addresses will be > utilized within 60 months. > > Rationale: > The IPv4 transfer market is a necessary vehicle to effectively > reallocate from those with excess to those with need. The ARIN community > has spoken regarding the importance of maintaining a needs-based > justification system for all 8.3 Specified Transfers. However, 24 months > need is far too short a planning horizon for potential buyers > contemplating a significant financial transaction which ensures business > continuity. > > For both sellers and buyers, increasing from 24 to 60 months promotes > considerably more certainty for transaction approval. Such certainty has > been repeatedly expressed as the single greatest requirement for > allocating human (business, legal, administrative) and financial > resources in a legitimate transfer process. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 21:40:53 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:40:53 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEA5DB5.6060108@burnttofu.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> <4FEA5DB5.6060108@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Michael Sinatra wrote: > A few months ago, I floated the idea of extending the time horizon for 8.3 > transfers to 36 months. ?The only comment I got back was an AC member > (possibly speaking for himself only) making the valid point that we should > see how things go at 24 months. ?I agreed at the time. As a shepherd for the current version of the policy, I advocated for beyond 24 months initially. At that time, the effort to get the number beyond 24 mos. was likely to be both draining and unproductive based on the makeup and ideology of the ARIN Advisory Council. That has not changed and it is likely to continue to be difficult based on my current knowledge. Hopefully, I will be surprised. In light of ARIN returning both legacy and NON legacy addresses to the IANA, I would be supportive of a legacy resource holder distinction and this proposal including the removing of a needs test. Keep a needs test for community addresses in our pools, but end it for legacy resources. This is a good step towards fair and equitable treatment for "all" ARIN region businesses. Best, -M< From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Tue Jun 26 21:47:43 2012 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:47:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> (ARIN's message of "Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:46:53 -0400") References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> Message-ID: <86zk7p5xvk.fsf@seastrom.com> ARIN writes: > For both sellers and buyers, increasing from 24 to 60 months promotes > considerably more certainty for transaction approval. Such certainty > has been repeatedly expressed as the single greatest requirement for > allocating human (business, legal, administrative) and financial > resources in a legitimate transfer process. Opposed as written, for reasons others have already articulated. -r From mysidia at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 22:03:03 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:03:03 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEA039D.9090405@arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/26/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > Opposed as written. > Also opposed as written. 60 months from now is a post-IPv4 internet. By then, everything will be IPv6, and a 60 month supply supply of IPv4 addresses today is ZERO IP addresses, so if all you can get is a 60 month supply, then that means you can't get any ips. Changing the rule to a "60 month supply of addresses"; is equivalent to removing "Justified need" requirement entirely. And I am opposed to this proposed change for the same reason I am opposed to removing the justified needs requirement; it is inconsistent with ARIN's mission, and also inconsistent with requirements set out in the relevant RFCs to do so. -- -JH From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 07:37:20 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:37:20 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I Message-ID: PPML: At the time that we implemented the last Section 4.4 revisions, we created a reserve pool (/16) for CI. We had anticipated that some v4 would be needed post exhaustion for the various CI needs and the new GTLD process underway at ICANN. What we didn't anticipate was the relative "success" of that process which has resulted in an ask for 1930 new top level names across the five regions. The way it affects this region is that there are 911 requests for new entries in the root here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics There aren't going to be 911 successes. The estimate that I hear is likely is 600 to 700. Assuming an assignment of a /24, we don't have enough in the pool to serve the ones specific to this region (along with the IX's) We need to increase the pool to a /14 and make the term permanent. I picked a /14 based on a worst case scenario of a /23 each and including new IX deployments which I think are probably going to be miniscule in North America as compared to new gTLD's. Para 2 existing: ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner consistent with community expectations. Suggested Para 2 edited: ARIN will place an equivalent of a /14 of IPv4 address space in a reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. Thoughts? Best, -M< From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 07:49:05 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 04:49:05 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> Opposed. Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that new gTLDs were a consideration in this set-aside and/or that they were the primary consideration. Assumes that each gTLD requires a separate /23 to run nameservers. (many of them will likely be consolidated on the same servers, ala gtld-servers.net containing com+net). Those that arrive after the free pool is exhausted will simply have to live in the IPv6 world with the rest of us. The ability or not to provide IPv4 nameservices, if it is an issue (and I am not convinced that it is) should be a consideration at ICANN in the number of these requests that they approve. Modifying ARIN policy around anticipation of an ICANN decision is folly. If action is required once a decision is made, we should consider this issue at that time. Yes, I recognize that may mean we don't have any options at that point. I see no reason to treat new gTLDs as some special class of service immune from IPv4 runout. Owen On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > PPML: > > At the time that we implemented the last Section 4.4 revisions, we > created a reserve pool (/16) for CI. We had anticipated that some v4 > would be needed post exhaustion for the various CI needs and the new > GTLD process underway at ICANN. What we didn't anticipate was the > relative "success" of that process which has resulted in an ask for > 1930 new top level names across the five regions. > > The way it affects this region is that there are 911 requests for new > entries in the root here: > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics > > There aren't going to be 911 successes. The estimate that I hear is > likely is 600 to 700. Assuming an assignment of a /24, we don't have > enough in the pool to serve the ones specific to this region (along > with the IX's) > > We need to increase the pool to a /14 and make the term permanent. I > picked a /14 based on a worst case scenario of a /23 each and > including new IX deployments which I think are probably going to be > miniscule in North America as compared to new gTLD's. > > > Para 2 existing: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Suggested Para 2 edited: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /14 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Thoughts? > > > Best, > > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 08:43:22 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:43:22 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I In-Reply-To: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> References: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Opposed. > > Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that new gTLDs were a > consideration in this set-aside and/or that they were the primary > consideration. Yes, I believe they were. I seem to recall the author mentioning this. There also aren't going to be 256 new IX's in North America in three years, if ever. The /16 was intended to cover a variety of CI needs as defined in 4.4. gTLD's fit into that definition which is explicit there and here. > Assumes that each gTLD requires a separate /23 to run nameservers. > (many of them will likely be consolidated on the same servers, > ala gtld-servers.net containing com+net). /23 is a worst case. We could go with a single /24. Some are likely to be consolidated. Running that number, a /15 might cover most of what will be needed. [ snip ] Best, -M< From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 09:05:36 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:05:36 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I In-Reply-To: References: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> Message-ID: <3C0EDC21-E9B0-47F8-A74B-4E602A607ACF@delong.com> Sent from my iPad On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Opposed. >> >> Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that new gTLDs were a >> consideration in this set-aside and/or that they were the primary >> consideration. > > Yes, I believe they were. I seem to recall the author mentioning this. > There also aren't going to be 256 new IX's in North America in three > years, if ever. The /16 was intended to cover a variety of CI needs > as defined in 4.4. gTLD's fit into that definition which is explicit > there and here. > I agree that nameserver infrastructure was one of the considerations. That it was specific to new gTLDs is the point where I remain unconvinced. >> Assumes that each gTLD requires a separate /23 to run nameservers. >> (many of them will likely be consolidated on the same servers, >> ala gtld-servers.net containing com+net). > > /23 is a worst case. We could go with a single /24. Some are likely to > be consolidated. Running that number, a /15 might cover most of what > will be needed. > Let's wait and see what ICANN approves. Reserving more space for this at this time is premature and there may be other equally valid needs in the meantime. I'm more concerned about providing CI to maintain existing services than about making sure that new gTLDs have the option of avoiding IPv4 runout while everyone else suffers with it. Owen > [ snip ] > > Best, > > -M< > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 27 09:08:00 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:08:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I In-Reply-To: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> References: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> Suggested Para 2 edited: >> >> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /14 of IPv4 address space in a >> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Assumes that each gTLD requires a separate /23 to run nameservers. > (many of them will likely be consolidated on the same servers, > ala gtld-servers.net containing com+net). I'm still on the fence but I wonder if someone who can afford to pay.. how much was it again to ICANN? to get a new TLD can't acquire the IP address block they need for an anycast server system on the open market. Still, it seems like some policy correction here may be in order. If this group depletes the pool (which they seem qualified to do) then it won't be available for anyone else either. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 09:43:36 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:43:36 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I In-Reply-To: References: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:08 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> Suggested Para 2 edited: >>> >>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /14 of IPv4 address space in a >>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. >> >> Assumes that each gTLD requires a separate /23 to run nameservers. >> (many of them will likely be consolidated on the same servers, >> ala gtld-servers.net containing com+net). > > I'm still on the fence but I wonder if someone who can afford to pay.. > how much was it again to ICANN? to get a new TLD can't acquire the IP > address block they need for an anycast server system on the open > market. The registration fee was ~$185,000, plus expenses and then of course the cost of your capital tied up in the process. I had some similar thinking while I was considering this. Why have a CI policy at all if we aren't going to treat them all equal? > > Still, it seems like some policy correction here may be in order. If > this group depletes the pool (which they seem qualified to do) then it > won't be available for anyone else either. > We agree. Best, -M< From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 10:46:12 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:46:12 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I In-Reply-To: References: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> Message-ID: <813EF6EA-7F60-41C0-9AD5-9AFE65D4EBD1@delong.com> Sent from my iPad On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:08 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>> Suggested Para 2 edited: >>>> >>>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /14 of IPv4 address space in a >>>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. >>> >>> Assumes that each gTLD requires a separate /23 to run nameservers. >>> (many of them will likely be consolidated on the same servers, >>> ala gtld-servers.net containing com+net). >> >> I'm still on the fence but I wonder if someone who can afford to pay.. >> how much was it again to ICANN? to get a new TLD can't acquire the IP >> address block they need for an anycast server system on the open >> market. > > The registration fee was ~$185,000, plus expenses and then of course > the cost of your capital tied up in the process. I had some similar > thinking while I was considering this. Why have a CI policy at all if > we aren't going to treat them all equal? Not expanding the reservation size to accommodate later additions is not a case of inequality. It is a limitation of resources. Expanding this reservation involves preventing the addresses from being allocated/assigned to other uses without a clear case that it is necessary, I hesitate to do that. Owen From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 11:50:30 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:50:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Revisiting Section 4.4 Micro allocations for C/I In-Reply-To: References: <370B6698-0A34-4482-8F93-3C05157EF193@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> Suggested Para 2 edited: >>> >>> ARIN will place an equivalent of a /14 of IPv4 address space in a >>> reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. >> >> Assumes that each gTLD requires a separate /23 to run nameservers. >> (many of them will likely be consolidated on the same servers, >> ala gtld-servers.net containing com+net). > > I'm still on the fence but I wonder if someone who can afford to pay.. > how much was it again to ICANN? to get a new TLD can't acquire the IP > address block they need for an anycast server system on the open > market. I am assuming the vast majority of these folk will be running DNS services on the platform of DNS providers/backend registry providers such as Nuestar/Afilias/Verisign/etc. that will cut down on the number of blocks needed, no? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From info at arin.net Wed Jun 27 13:22:44 2012 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:22:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> Message-ID: <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy Development Process. The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Mailing list subscription information can be found at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan Proposal Version: 1.0 Date: 27 JUNE 2012 Proposal type: NEW Policy term: PERMANENT Policy statement: Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from: ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner consistent with community expectations. Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to: ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. Rationale: Additional critical infrastructure is being added to the Internet and in a number greater than anticipated. The original CI pool was created to serve new IX and new CI requirements. The pending need is estimated in the 600 new gTLD range. With a /24 assignment from the existing boundary and the likelihood of some sharing platforms, assigning a /15 would seem prudent. I also have removed the limited term. If at a later date we opt to remove or reduce the pool, it's simpler to do so without an extra step, namely the term. The process for completing the additions still has some time to play out, but it is likely we will have exhausted by the time that the process does fully play out. From lee at dilkie.com Wed Jun 27 13:43:28 2012 From: lee at dilkie.com (Lee Dilkie) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:43:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size In-Reply-To: <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FEB4640.4030600@dilkie.com> can whoever at ARIN that is posting new proposals please ensure that these are sent out as "new" topics? the last number of proposals are show a "In-reply-to" header that is causing my threaded mail client to insert these into other proposal discussions. tnx, -lee this one.. Message-ID: <4FEB4164.60704 at arin.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:22:44 -0400 From: ARIN User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: arin-ppml at arin.net References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA at delong.com> In-Reply-To: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA at delong.com> Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size and another topic altogether.. From: Milton L Mueller To: Chris Engel Thread-Topic: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources Thread-Index: AQHNRFmBFcEbtjEc0kKP3SKATUoksJbvLguA///JS+CAAHUIgIAABhsAgAFq3XCAAMbcgIAAv09QgACsrID//9T+UIAAT/uAgACyTBCAA05sAP//0MFw Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:32:26 +0000 Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21879AE at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA at delong.com> <4FCFC2C4.30302 at arin.net> <62E43551-917A-42FC-8520-7499F77BDD42 at delong.com> <4FD018ED.6010403 at gmx.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C9F at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD0EEE5.9090105 at sprunk.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2185A12 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2CB39.50904 at redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186084 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD3FC8D.80808 at redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2186353 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD41B91.5090606 at redbarn.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21875AD at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> In-Reply-To: note the same "References" to 8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA at delong.com On 6/27/2012 1:22 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 27 JUNE 2012 > > Proposal type: NEW > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Rationale: > > Additional critical infrastructure is being added to the Internet and > in a number greater than anticipated. The original CI pool was created > to serve new IX and new CI requirements. The pending need is estimated > in the 600 new gTLD range. With a /24 assignment from the existing > boundary and the likelihood of some sharing platforms, assigning a /15 > would seem prudent. I also have removed the limited term. If at a > later date we opt to remove or reduce the pool, it's simpler to do so > without an extra step, namely the term. The process for completing the > additions still has some time to play out, but it is likely we will > have exhausted by the time that the process does fully play out. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 13:54:03 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:54:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size In-Reply-To: <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 27 JUNE 2012 > > Proposal type: NEW > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. I can buy that as a compromise. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Jun 27 14:14:40 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:14:40 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120627111440.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.67d5650a4c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> I was encouraged by David and Jeffrey's willingness to explore an increase in the justification period on specified transfers. I look forward to further opinion and discussion. Owen, I?m not certain it?s entirely relevant to reflect upon one?s own ability to plan for 5 years and then assert that no one else could possibly do so either. Nor is it terribly compelling to apply hindsight as a reason to dismiss future planning. The majority of interested buyers we converse with do enjoy 3 to 5 year strategic plans and thus have interest in acquiring block sizes conducive to meeting components of those plans. Will their plans change over five years? Of course, but that is nature of business. Recognizing that internal and external changes are inevitable is not a reason to dismiss long term planning. If you are suggesting that we revert back to 12 months based on your personal perception of what can be justified by each and every ISP and End-User business in the ARIN region, finding common ground on an appropriate increase from 24 months is doubtful. Regards, Jeff Mehlenbacher IPv4 Market Group jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 15:05:40 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:05:40 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size In-Reply-To: <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> Message-ID: ARIN, How much of the "equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space" reserved under 4.4 has been used to date? If the answer is zero (because you are still allocating from smaller blocks), how much CI space has been allocated in the last year? If I'm reading https://www.arin.net/knowledge/micro_allocations.html right, it looks like you have issued a total of about 1.2 /16 equivalents for CI, plus another 0.3 /16 equivalents for IXPs. Thanks, Scott On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > > ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the > Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy > Development Process. > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next > regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly > scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended > to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how > to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML. > > The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML, > particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning > behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough > vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations. > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/**proposals/index.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/**pdp.html > > Mailing list subscription information can be found > at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_**lists/ > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 27 JUNE 2012 > > Proposal type: NEW > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Rationale: > > Additional critical infrastructure is being added to the Internet and > in a number greater than anticipated. The original CI pool was created > to serve new IX and new CI requirements. The pending need is estimated > in the 600 new gTLD range. With a /24 assignment from the existing > boundary and the likelihood of some sharing platforms, assigning a /15 > would seem prudent. I also have removed the limited term. If at a > later date we opt to remove or reduce the pool, it's simpler to do so > without an extra step, namely the term. The process for completing the > additions still has some time to play out, but it is likely we will > have exhausted by the time that the process does fully play out. > ______________________________**_________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/**listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Wed Jun 27 15:14:25 2012 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:14:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120627111440.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.67d5650a4c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> (jeffmehlenbacher@ipv4marketgroup.com's message of "Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:14:40 -0700") References: <20120627111440.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.67d5650a4c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <86vcicr2i6.fsf@seastrom.com> writes: > Owen, I'm not certain it's entirely relevant to reflect upon one's > own ability to plan for 5 years and then assert that no one else could > possibly do so either. Nor is it terribly compelling to apply hindsight > as a reason to dismiss future planning. The majority of interested > buyers we converse with do enjoy 3 to 5 year strategic plans and thus > have interest in acquiring block sizes conducive to meeting components > of those plans. Will their plans change over five years? Of course, > but that is nature of business. Recognizing that internal and external > changes are inevitable is not a reason to dismiss long term planning. > If you are suggesting that we revert back to 12 months based on your > personal perception of what can be justified by each and every ISP and > End-User business in the ARIN region, finding common ground on an > appropriate increase from 24 months is doubtful. Hi Jeff, Since you bring up "common ground", I'd like to remind you that the 24 months in 2011-12 was a compromise position that modified the text (12 months) in 2011-11. There were others calling for 36 months at the time. Both 2011-11 and 2011-12 have been active since February 10th 2012. Frankly, I think attempts to extend the horizon are premature. Oppose as written. -r From jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net Wed Jun 27 15:16:37 2012 From: jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net (Jeffrey Lyon) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:16:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <86vcicr2i6.fsf@seastrom.com> References: <20120627111440.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.67d5650a4c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <86vcicr2i6.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > writes: > >> Owen, I'm not certain it's entirely relevant to reflect upon one's >> own ability to plan for 5 years and then assert that no one else could >> possibly do so either. ?Nor is it terribly compelling to apply hindsight >> as a reason to dismiss future planning. ?The majority of interested >> buyers we converse with do enjoy 3 to 5 year strategic plans and thus >> have interest in acquiring block sizes conducive to meeting components >> of those plans. ?Will their plans change over five years? ?Of course, >> but that is nature of business. ?Recognizing that internal and external >> changes are inevitable is not a reason to dismiss long term planning. >> If you are suggesting that we revert back to 12 months based on your >> personal perception of what can be justified by each and every ISP and >> End-User business in the ARIN region, finding common ground on an >> appropriate increase from 24 months is doubtful. > > Hi Jeff, > > Since you bring up "common ground", I'd like to remind you that the 24 > months in 2011-12 was a compromise position that modified the text (12 > months) in 2011-11. ?There were others calling for 36 months at the time. > > Both 2011-11 and 2011-12 have been active since February 10th 2012. > > Frankly, I think attempts to extend the horizon are premature. > > Oppose as written. > > -r > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. 36 months is common ground from my perspective when you consider that there are still people who want way more than that :). -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP President, Black Lotus Communications mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 15:39:08 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:39:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120627111440.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.67d5650a4c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120627111440.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.67d5650a4c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, wrote: > I was encouraged by David and Jeffrey's willingness to explore an > increase in the justification period on specified transfers. I look > forward to further opinion and discussion. > > Owen, I?m not certain it?s entirely relevant to reflect upon one?s > own ability to plan for 5 I don't think that any RIR community has ever asked that planning be done on 5 year windows (probably because it is unrealistic as a time-frame). I think (but could be wrong) that 24 months was the longest period in the last decade. This just aids speculation IMO, Oppose. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From ppml at rs.seastrom.com Wed Jun 27 15:55:02 2012 From: ppml at rs.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:55:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: (Jeffrey Lyon's message of "Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:16:37 -0400") References: <20120627111440.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.67d5650a4c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <86vcicr2i6.fsf@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <868vf8il7t.fsf@seastrom.com> Jeffrey Lyon writes: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Robert E. Seastrom > wrote: >> >> writes: >> >>> Owen, I'm not certain it's entirely relevant to reflect upon one's >>> own ability to plan for 5 years and then assert that no one else could >>> possibly do so either. ?Nor is it terribly compelling to apply hindsight >>> as a reason to dismiss future planning. ?The majority of interested >>> buyers we converse with do enjoy 3 to 5 year strategic plans and thus >>> have interest in acquiring block sizes conducive to meeting components >>> of those plans. ?Will their plans change over five years? ?Of course, >>> but that is nature of business. ?Recognizing that internal and external >>> changes are inevitable is not a reason to dismiss long term planning. >>> If you are suggesting that we revert back to 12 months based on your >>> personal perception of what can be justified by each and every ISP and >>> End-User business in the ARIN region, finding common ground on an >>> appropriate increase from 24 months is doubtful. >> >> Hi Jeff, >> >> Since you bring up "common ground", I'd like to remind you that the 24 >> months in 2011-12 was a compromise position that modified the text (12 >> months) in 2011-11. ?There were others calling for 36 months at the time. >> >> Both 2011-11 and 2011-12 have been active since February 10th 2012. >> >> Frankly, I think attempts to extend the horizon are premature. >> >> Oppose as written. > > 36 months is common ground from my perspective when you consider that > there are still people who want way more than that :). Can we then expect another series of "common ground" compromise proposals to move from 60 to 96 months, to 180 months so long as someone is suggesting that on the basis of a 30 year mortgage it is in fact possible to have a 360 month plan? Continue to be opposed as written. Also, planning on not replying further in this thread myself as I've made my position known and reasonable people may disagree. Followups from other interested folks highly encouraged. -r From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Jun 27 15:56:44 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:56:44 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120627125644.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.efcbcb1299.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Appreciate the background Michael. In the past twelve months, we have had over 300 communications with potential buyers and sellers of IPv4 address blocks. There was dissatisfaction with 12 months justification for 8.3 and on February 10, 2012, when 24 months was introduced, it was met with a collective "shrug of the shoulders" by the prospective buyer community in ARIN region. This is what we hear with a very high degree of consistency: From prospective buyers--they are loath to continue going back to the ARIN trough every 90-days seeking another allocation and having to justify said...but they are equally loath to participate in a specified transfer and compound technical involvement with legal, business, administrative involvement only to receive a 2 year supply--and--receive the added privilege of paying for the benefit of a transfer and undergoing exactly the same scrutiny for justification of an unused IPv4 block. They would rather seek a larger block with a 100% measure of certainty that said will be approved based on 60 months allocation. One effort, one time--five years of business continuity and thus the ability to focus on managing growth. From sellers (majority are legacy /16 holders)--it has become increasingly obvious to each that full transfer of their /16 in one transaction is possible, but rare. There is a rather narrow market of companies that could justify such a block size over 24 months--particularly when free allocations to most of these companies still abound. So sellers are dissatisfied with 24 months because they are often forced to split /16s (for example) into a /17 and two /18s. If a /16 is split into a /17 and two /18s?you are talking about the seller applying 3x the technical, business, administrative and legal effort to transfer unused resources. Sellers therefore would be more receptive to engaging in specified transfers if the buyer market was broadened via 60 month need. This enables a much higher probability the entire block could be transferred at one time thus making sellers of unused IPs much more likely to enter the specified transfer market. If ARIN adopts a 60 month justification period on 8.3 specified transfers, I simply do not believe it will materially affect the speed at which the free pool is or isn't depleted. There will be those companies that elect to systematically apply for resources every 90 days and those companies with financial wherewithal will be much more inclined to participate in 8.3 specified transfers. Jeff Mehlenbacher IPv4 Market Group Email: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:11:17 -0700 From: Michael Sinatra To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <4FEA5DB5.6060108 at burnttofu.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed A few months ago, I floated the idea of extending the time horizon for 8.3 transfers to 36 months. The only comment I got back was an AC member (possibly speaking for himself only) making the valid point that we should see how things go at 24 months. I agreed at the time. 2011-12 extended the needs window to 24 months and it was implemented just about four and a half months ago. Given the short timeframe, I am having a hard time understanding the rationale for the proposal; specifically how the 24-month window creates significant uncertainty, or, more importantly, how we know it to be so. I am sure that a registered STLS Facilitator like Jeff has a better window into that issue that I do, but I can't imagine it's a good enough window to draw such a conclusion. (It's worth noting that at my most recent job, I was hired on to a 24-month contract, with no guarantee of re-appointment at the time of my hiring. Contrary to the implications of the rationale, 24-month time horizons appear to be quite frequent in free markets.) Opposed as written. michael From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 16:14:51 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:14:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120627125644.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.efcbcb1299.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120627125644.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.efcbcb1299.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <91594AE7-8076-4BC1-BDB7-7C7056CDD5B7@delong.com> The concern is not about the speed of free pool depletion (at least from my perspective). Afterall, we're talking about transfers -- addresses which by definition are already not part of the free pool. However, the goal of ARIN policy is also not to optimize for your particular business model. The goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are held by those that have justified need. A 60 month justified need for a resource as constrained as IPv4 is simply will not further that policy goal and will, in fact, be contrary to it. 24 months is bad enough. As others have said, 24 months was a bad compromise. I'm sure we will, indeed, continue to see a flurry of these proposals to extend the time line in the interests of commerce. This is, in fact, part of the problem set which has led me to generally oppose having a paid transfer market and which led me to vehemently oppose having one outside of the exigent circumstances of IPv4 runout. As a trial balloon... How many would support the following proposal if I were to submit it: Type: modify Policy statement: Delete section 8.3 from the NRPM Owen On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:56 PM, wrote: > Appreciate the background Michael. In the past twelve months, we have > had over 300 communications with potential buyers and sellers of IPv4 > address blocks. There was dissatisfaction with 12 months justification > for 8.3 and on February 10, 2012, when 24 months was introduced, it was > met with a collective "shrug of the shoulders" by the prospective buyer > community in ARIN region. This is what we hear with a very high degree > of consistency: > > From prospective buyers--they are loath to continue going back to the > ARIN trough every 90-days seeking another allocation and having to > justify said...but they are equally loath to participate in a specified > transfer and compound technical involvement with legal, business, > administrative involvement only to receive a 2 year supply--and--receive > the added privilege of paying for the benefit of a transfer and > undergoing exactly the same scrutiny for justification of an unused IPv4 > block. They would rather seek a larger block with a 100% measure of > certainty that said will be approved based on 60 months allocation. One > effort, one time--five years of business continuity and thus the ability > to focus on managing growth. > > From sellers (majority are legacy /16 holders)--it has become > increasingly obvious to each that full transfer of their /16 in one > transaction is possible, but rare. There is a rather narrow market of > companies that could justify such a block size over 24 > months--particularly when free allocations to most of these companies > still abound. So sellers are dissatisfied with 24 months because they > are often forced to split /16s (for example) into a /17 and two /18s. > If a /16 is split into a /17 and two /18s?you are talking about the > seller applying 3x the technical, business, administrative and legal > effort to transfer unused resources. Sellers therefore would be more > receptive to engaging in specified transfers if the buyer market was > broadened via 60 month need. This enables a much higher probability the > entire block could be transferred at one time thus making sellers of > unused IPs much more likely to enter the specified transfer market. > > If ARIN adopts a 60 month justification period on 8.3 specified > transfers, I simply do not believe it will materially affect the speed > at which the free pool is or isn't depleted. There will be those > companies that elect to systematically apply for resources every 90 days > and those companies with financial wherewithal will be much more > inclined to participate in 8.3 specified transfers. > > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > IPv4 Market Group > Email: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com > > > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:11:17 -0700 > From: Michael Sinatra > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > Message-ID: <4FEA5DB5.6060108 at burnttofu.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > A few months ago, I floated the idea of extending the time horizon for > 8.3 transfers to 36 months. The only comment I got back was an AC > member (possibly speaking for himself only) making the valid point that > we should see how things go at 24 months. I agreed at the time. > > 2011-12 extended the needs window to 24 months and it was implemented > just about four and a half months ago. Given the short timeframe, I am > having a hard time understanding the rationale for the proposal; > specifically how the 24-month window creates significant uncertainty, > or, more importantly, how we know it to be so. I am sure that a > registered STLS Facilitator like Jeff has a better window into that > issue that I do, but I can't imagine it's a good enough window to draw > such a conclusion. > > (It's worth noting that at my most recent job, I was hired on to a > 24-month contract, with no guarantee of re-appointment at the time of my > > hiring. Contrary to the implications of the rationale, 24-month time > horizons appear to be quite frequent in free markets.) > > Opposed as written. > > michael > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Wed Jun 27 16:30:13 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:30:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120627133013.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.9acc6df481.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Then I assume you'll be reclaiming all unused resources (legacy or otherwise) as "the goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are held by those that have justified need." Didn't we just go through that pain on the PPML? The horses have left the barn Owen. There is an active transfer market. Eliminating 8.3 just means ARIN will no longer be part of the process and the registry will be further eroded over time. The objective should be to encourage companies to participate by making the process as pain-free as possible while still maintaining ARIN involvement in transfers of number resources. Jeff Mehlenbacher -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers From: Owen DeLong Date: Wed, June 27, 2012 4:14 pm To: Cc: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net, arin-ppml at arin.net The concern is not about the speed of free pool depletion (at least from my perspective). Afterall, we're talking about transfers -- addresses which by definition are already not part of the free pool. However, the goal of ARIN policy is also not to optimize for your particular business model. The goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are held by those that have justified need. A 60 month justified need for a resource as constrained as IPv4 is simply will not further that policy goal and will, in fact, be contrary to it. 24 months is bad enough. As others have said, 24 months was a bad compromise. I'm sure we will, indeed, continue to see a flurry of these proposals to extend the time line in the interests of commerce. This is, in fact, part of the problem set which has led me to generally oppose having a paid transfer market and which led me to vehemently oppose having one outside of the exigent circumstances of IPv4 runout. As a trial balloon... How many would support the following proposal if I were to submit it: Type: modify Policy statement: Delete section 8.3 from the NRPM Owen On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:56 PM, wrote: > Appreciate the background Michael. In the past twelve months, we have > had over 300 communications with potential buyers and sellers of IPv4 > address blocks. There was dissatisfaction with 12 months justification > for 8.3 and on February 10, 2012, when 24 months was introduced, it was > met with a collective "shrug of the shoulders" by the prospective buyer > community in ARIN region. This is what we hear with a very high degree > of consistency: > > From prospective buyers--they are loath to continue going back to the > ARIN trough every 90-days seeking another allocation and having to > justify said...but they are equally loath to participate in a specified > transfer and compound technical involvement with legal, business, > administrative involvement only to receive a 2 year supply--and--receive > the added privilege of paying for the benefit of a transfer and > undergoing exactly the same scrutiny for justification of an unused IPv4 > block. They would rather seek a larger block with a 100% measure of > certainty that said will be approved based on 60 months allocation. One > effort, one time--five years of business continuity and thus the ability > to focus on managing growth. > > From sellers (majority are legacy /16 holders)--it has become > increasingly obvious to each that full transfer of their /16 in one > transaction is possible, but rare. There is a rather narrow market of > companies that could justify such a block size over 24 > months--particularly when free allocations to most of these companies > still abound. So sellers are dissatisfied with 24 months because they > are often forced to split /16s (for example) into a /17 and two /18s. > If a /16 is split into a /17 and two /18s?you are talking about the > seller applying 3x the technical, business, administrative and legal > effort to transfer unused resources. Sellers therefore would be more > receptive to engaging in specified transfers if the buyer market was > broadened via 60 month need. This enables a much higher probability the > entire block could be transferred at one time thus making sellers of > unused IPs much more likely to enter the specified transfer market. > > If ARIN adopts a 60 month justification period on 8.3 specified > transfers, I simply do not believe it will materially affect the speed > at which the free pool is or isn't depleted. There will be those > companies that elect to systematically apply for resources every 90 days > and those companies with financial wherewithal will be much more > inclined to participate in 8.3 specified transfers. > > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > IPv4 Market Group > Email: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com > > > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:11:17 -0700 > From: Michael Sinatra > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > Message-ID: <4FEA5DB5.6060108 at burnttofu.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > A few months ago, I floated the idea of extending the time horizon for > 8.3 transfers to 36 months. The only comment I got back was an AC > member (possibly speaking for himself only) making the valid point that > we should see how things go at 24 months. I agreed at the time. > > 2011-12 extended the needs window to 24 months and it was implemented > just about four and a half months ago. Given the short timeframe, I am > having a hard time understanding the rationale for the proposal; > specifically how the 24-month window creates significant uncertainty, > or, more importantly, how we know it to be so. I am sure that a > registered STLS Facilitator like Jeff has a better window into that > issue that I do, but I can't imagine it's a good enough window to draw > such a conclusion. > > (It's worth noting that at my most recent job, I was hired on to a > 24-month contract, with no guarantee of re-appointment at the time of my > > hiring. Contrary to the implications of the rationale, 24-month time > horizons appear to be quite frequent in free markets.) > > Opposed as written. > > michael > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 16:43:21 2012 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:43:21 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <91594AE7-8076-4BC1-BDB7-7C7056CDD5B7@delong.com> References: <20120627125644.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.efcbcb1299.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <91594AE7-8076-4BC1-BDB7-7C7056CDD5B7@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > The concern is not about the speed of free pool depletion (at least from my > perspective). Afterall, we're talking about transfers -- addresses which by > definition are already not part of the free pool. > > However, the goal of ARIN policy is also not to optimize for your > particular > business model. The goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are held > by those that have justified need. > I would agree that this is the goal we're trying to optimize for. A 60 month justified need for a resource as constrained as IPv4 is simply > will not further that policy goal and will, in fact, be contrary to it. > I agree that with a 60 month justified need threshold we do have a risk of organizations will acquire more space than they have immediate need for, and that the addresses will not be in use for some time after they're transferred. However, there is another case we need to be sure not to ignore. If organizations holding (and not using) legacy space are disinclined to transfer it due to ARIN's restrictions, then those addresses will not be in use (or held by those that have justified need) either. I'm not sure that 60 months is the right threshold at this time, but I do think we need to figure out how to balance the incentive for address holders to release space to those with justified need against the possibility that organizations will acquire more addresses than they have immediate need for. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 21:51:18 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:51:18 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120627133013.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.9acc6df481.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120627133013.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.9acc6df481.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <6765107C-5535-4B27-9A84-0AA2B951A401@delong.com> On Jun 27, 2012, at 1:30 PM, wrote: > Then I assume you'll be reclaiming all unused resources (legacy or > otherwise) as "the goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are held > by those that have justified need." Didn't we just go through that pain > on the PPML? If it were practical, yes, I would support doing that. Unfortunately, sometimes one needs to accept tradeoffs between ideal goals and reality. Examples would include transfer policy in the first place, the 24 month clock on transfers while free pool limitations are at 3 months, etc. > The horses have left the barn Owen. There is an active transfer market. > Eliminating 8.3 just means ARIN will no longer be part of the process > and the registry will be further eroded over time. The objective should > be to encourage companies to participate by making the process as > pain-free as possible while still maintaining ARIN involvement in > transfers of number resources. Blah blah blah... That threat has been played and most people don't actually believe it at this point. I do encourage companies to return resources they are not using by whatever means facilitate that. I do not encourage reissuing those resources to organizations based on entirely speculative descriptions of need, no matter how much it might help your business model. Owen > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > From: Owen DeLong > Date: Wed, June 27, 2012 4:14 pm > To: > Cc: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net, arin-ppml at arin.net > > The concern is not about the speed of free pool depletion (at least from > my > perspective). Afterall, we're talking about transfers -- addresses which > by > definition are already not part of the free pool. > > However, the goal of ARIN policy is also not to optimize for your > particular > business model. The goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are > held > by those that have justified need. > > A 60 month justified need for a resource as constrained as IPv4 is > simply > will not further that policy goal and will, in fact, be contrary to it. > > 24 months is bad enough. As others have said, 24 months was a bad > compromise. I'm sure we will, indeed, continue to see a flurry of these > proposals to extend the time line in the interests of commerce. This is, > in fact, part of the problem set which has led me to generally oppose > having a paid transfer market and which led me to vehemently oppose > having one outside of the exigent circumstances of IPv4 runout. > > As a trial balloon... > > How many would support the following proposal if I were to submit it: > > > Type: modify > Policy statement: > > Delete section 8.3 from the NRPM > > Owen > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:56 PM, > wrote: > >> Appreciate the background Michael. In the past twelve months, we have >> had over 300 communications with potential buyers and sellers of IPv4 >> address blocks. There was dissatisfaction with 12 months justification >> for 8.3 and on February 10, 2012, when 24 months was introduced, it was >> met with a collective "shrug of the shoulders" by the prospective buyer >> community in ARIN region. This is what we hear with a very high degree >> of consistency: >> >> From prospective buyers--they are loath to continue going back to the >> ARIN trough every 90-days seeking another allocation and having to >> justify said...but they are equally loath to participate in a specified >> transfer and compound technical involvement with legal, business, >> administrative involvement only to receive a 2 year supply--and--receive >> the added privilege of paying for the benefit of a transfer and >> undergoing exactly the same scrutiny for justification of an unused IPv4 >> block. They would rather seek a larger block with a 100% measure of >> certainty that said will be approved based on 60 months allocation. One >> effort, one time--five years of business continuity and thus the ability >> to focus on managing growth. >> >> From sellers (majority are legacy /16 holders)--it has become >> increasingly obvious to each that full transfer of their /16 in one >> transaction is possible, but rare. There is a rather narrow market of >> companies that could justify such a block size over 24 >> months--particularly when free allocations to most of these companies >> still abound. So sellers are dissatisfied with 24 months because they >> are often forced to split /16s (for example) into a /17 and two /18s. >> If a /16 is split into a /17 and two /18s?you are talking about the >> seller applying 3x the technical, business, administrative and legal >> effort to transfer unused resources. Sellers therefore would be more >> receptive to engaging in specified transfers if the buyer market was >> broadened via 60 month need. This enables a much higher probability the >> entire block could be transferred at one time thus making sellers of >> unused IPs much more likely to enter the specified transfer market. >> >> If ARIN adopts a 60 month justification period on 8.3 specified >> transfers, I simply do not believe it will materially affect the speed >> at which the free pool is or isn't depleted. There will be those >> companies that elect to systematically apply for resources every 90 days >> and those companies with financial wherewithal will be much more >> inclined to participate in 8.3 specified transfers. >> >> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher >> IPv4 Market Group >> Email: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com >> >> >> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:11:17 -0700 >> From: Michael Sinatra >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based >> Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >> Message-ID: <4FEA5DB5.6060108 at burnttofu.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> A few months ago, I floated the idea of extending the time horizon for >> 8.3 transfers to 36 months. The only comment I got back was an AC >> member (possibly speaking for himself only) making the valid point that >> we should see how things go at 24 months. I agreed at the time. >> >> 2011-12 extended the needs window to 24 months and it was implemented >> just about four and a half months ago. Given the short timeframe, I am >> having a hard time understanding the rationale for the proposal; >> specifically how the 24-month window creates significant uncertainty, >> or, more importantly, how we know it to be so. I am sure that a >> registered STLS Facilitator like Jeff has a better window into that >> issue that I do, but I can't imagine it's a good enough window to draw >> such a conclusion. >> >> (It's worth noting that at my most recent job, I was hired on to a >> 24-month contract, with no guarantee of re-appointment at the time of my >> >> hiring. Contrary to the implications of the rationale, 24-month time >> horizons appear to be quite frequent in free markets.) >> >> Opposed as written. >> >> michael >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 27 21:55:47 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:55:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <20120627125644.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.efcbcb1299.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <91594AE7-8076-4BC1-BDB7-7C7056CDD5B7@delong.com> Message-ID: <7515F274-986F-4E4D-B6BC-44E0BC210FD0@delong.com> On Jun 27, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > The concern is not about the speed of free pool depletion (at least from my > perspective). Afterall, we're talking about transfers -- addresses which by > definition are already not part of the free pool. > > However, the goal of ARIN policy is also not to optimize for your particular > business model. The goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are held > by those that have justified need. > > I would agree that this is the goal we're trying to optimize for. > > A 60 month justified need for a resource as constrained as IPv4 is simply > will not further that policy goal and will, in fact, be contrary to it. > > I agree that with a 60 month justified need threshold we do have a risk of organizations will acquire more space than they have immediate need for, and that the addresses will not be in use for some time after they're transferred. However, there is another case we need to be sure not to ignore. If organizations holding (and not using) legacy space are disinclined to transfer it due to ARIN's restrictions, then those addresses will not be in use (or held by those that have justified need) either. > > I'm not sure that 60 months is the right threshold at this time, but I do think we need to figure out how to balance the incentive for address holders to release space to those with justified need against the possibility that organizations will acquire more addresses than they have immediate need for. > > -Scott Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try to push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the wrong direction. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 02:19:25 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:19:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <7515F274-986F-4E4D-B6BC-44E0BC210FD0@delong.com> References: <20120627125644.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.efcbcb1299.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <91594AE7-8076-4BC1-BDB7-7C7056CDD5B7@delong.com> <7515F274-986F-4E4D-B6BC-44E0BC210FD0@delong.com> Message-ID: On 6/27/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try to > push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the wrong > direction. Perhaps ARIN should eliminate the number of months as a hard policy value, and stipulate that the addresses will be ineligible for further specified transfers for at least twice the number of months' supply, the remaining restriction period is added to addresses obtained through any further addresses received by transfer/aggregation/renumbering request, and ARIN will charge an additional premium FEE for transfer of addresses, for more than a 6 month's supply of addresses, based on the number of months supply of addresses, a minimum transfer premium of $10 per IP address contained in the block, and variable based on ARIN staffs' opinion of a "market" value of the addresses, the premium to be set at 1.5x the estimated present value of the number of additional IP addresses allowed to be transferred times the number of months in the future before the IP addresses corresponding to that future month's supply are expected to be required. And no less than a 25% additional increase in transfer fee for each additional "month's supply of addresses" to be added for each month's supply of addresses after the 6th month. Transfer premium proceeds to be used to offer an incentive for the return of addresses to the free pool. In other words... if you really need a 60-month supply of addresses; it is feasible, but will cost you, depending on the number of IP addresses that actually is. Theoretically, it wouldn't be responsible to go through with the transfer then, unless you really needed the IPs. > Owen -- -JH From matthew at matthew.at Thu Jun 28 02:41:53 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:41:53 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <20120627111440.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.67d5650a4c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4FEBFCB1.6010805@matthew.at> On 6/27/2012 8:39 PM, McTim wrote: > I don't think that any RIR community has ever asked that planning be > done on 5 year windows (probably because it is unrealistic as a > time-frame). I think (but could be wrong) that 24 months was the > longest period in the last decade. This just aids speculation IMO, > Oppose. This has no effect whatsoever on speculation, because there's no difference between "buying more than you really need and transferring them under 8.3" and "buying options on more than you really need and transferring part of them under 8.3". Just makes the lawyers a little extra money. Support, and would support removing needs justification for 8.3 transfers entirely. Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Thu Jun 28 02:44:23 2012 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:44:23 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size In-Reply-To: <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FEBFD47.6000008@matthew.at> On 6/27/2012 6:22 PM, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > ... > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. The sooner runout happens, the better. Support, and would support placing even more address space in reserve. Matthew Kaufman From Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com Thu Jun 28 04:11:24 2012 From: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com (Alexander, Daniel) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:11:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120627125644.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.efcbcb1299.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Jeff, One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3 transfers claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to use. By stretching the period to five years, we start trading one underutilized resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to the claimed benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who objected to these transactions. No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand the timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before having any data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes that have been made. While I don't claim to know what the magic number should be, I think this change would be irresponsible at this time, based only on the speculations made on this mailing list. I'm opposed to this proposal. Dan Alexander Speaking as myself On 6/27/12 3:56 PM, "jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com" wrote: >Appreciate the background Michael. In the past twelve months, we have >had over 300 communications with potential buyers and sellers of IPv4 >address blocks. There was dissatisfaction with 12 months justification >for 8.3 and on February 10, 2012, when 24 months was introduced, it was >met with a collective "shrug of the shoulders" by the prospective buyer >community in ARIN region. This is what we hear with a very high degree >of consistency: > >From prospective buyers--they are loath to continue going back to the >ARIN trough every 90-days seeking another allocation and having to >justify said...but they are equally loath to participate in a specified >transfer and compound technical involvement with legal, business, >administrative involvement only to receive a 2 year supply--and--receive >the added privilege of paying for the benefit of a transfer and >undergoing exactly the same scrutiny for justification of an unused IPv4 >block. They would rather seek a larger block with a 100% measure of >certainty that said will be approved based on 60 months allocation. One >effort, one time--five years of business continuity and thus the ability >to focus on managing growth. > >From sellers (majority are legacy /16 holders)--it has become >increasingly obvious to each that full transfer of their /16 in one >transaction is possible, but rare. There is a rather narrow market of >companies that could justify such a block size over 24 >months--particularly when free allocations to most of these companies >still abound. So sellers are dissatisfied with 24 months because they >are often forced to split /16s (for example) into a /17 and two /18s. >If a /16 is split into a /17 and two /18s?you are talking about the >seller applying 3x the technical, business, administrative and legal >effort to transfer unused resources. Sellers therefore would be more >receptive to engaging in specified transfers if the buyer market was >broadened via 60 month need. This enables a much higher probability the >entire block could be transferred at one time thus making sellers of >unused IPs much more likely to enter the specified transfer market. > >If ARIN adopts a 60 month justification period on 8.3 specified >transfers, I simply do not believe it will materially affect the speed >at which the free pool is or isn't depleted. There will be those >companies that elect to systematically apply for resources every 90 days >and those companies with financial wherewithal will be much more >inclined to participate in 8.3 specified transfers. > > >Jeff Mehlenbacher >IPv4 Market Group >Email: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com > > >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:11:17 -0700 >From: Michael Sinatra >To: arin-ppml at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >Message-ID: <4FEA5DB5.6060108 at burnttofu.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >A few months ago, I floated the idea of extending the time horizon for >8.3 transfers to 36 months. The only comment I got back was an AC >member (possibly speaking for himself only) making the valid point that >we should see how things go at 24 months. I agreed at the time. > >2011-12 extended the needs window to 24 months and it was implemented >just about four and a half months ago. Given the short timeframe, I am >having a hard time understanding the rationale for the proposal; >specifically how the 24-month window creates significant uncertainty, >or, more importantly, how we know it to be so. I am sure that a >registered STLS Facilitator like Jeff has a better window into that >issue that I do, but I can't imagine it's a good enough window to draw >such a conclusion. > >(It's worth noting that at my most recent job, I was hired on to a >24-month contract, with no guarantee of re-appointment at the time of my > >hiring. Contrary to the implications of the rationale, 24-month time >horizons appear to be quite frequent in free markets.) > >Opposed as written. > >michael > > > > >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Thu Jun 28 06:05:10 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:05:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> I understand your desire to sit tight and assess statistical evidence before suggesting a longer justification period is required. My concern with such a strategy is the decided lack of comprehensive transfer market data. We have only the ARIN Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS) and ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers (# Requested / # Completed). Is there another source you would consider useful to assess the appropriateness of extending the 24 months justification period? The STLS would suggest there is no market at all. In 2012, there was an update in February (a Facilitator was added) and two updates in June (a Facilitator was removed and another added). The last and only Seeker (Needer/Buyer) was December 2011 and it was a post-facto pre-approval of a public transaction in progress. Only two Listers (Sellers) have ever posted since November 2010...the most recent Lister being October 2011. It may be safe to say the STLS is a vehicle that doesn't attract interest and thus cannot be used as a reliable statistical measure for the purpose of monitoring the appropriateness of the current justification period. Now, if we implemented 60 months justification for a 1-year period and monitored uptake on the STLS for Listers/Seekers, that might be evidence that longer justification periods a) bring unused resources (listers) to market and b) bring organizations with need (seekers) forward. ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers further suggests the market is far from vibrant: 24 requested in 2011; 12 requested 2012 year-to-date. The issue with these statistics is the limited insight one can glean. Yes, the number of completed transfers is published but it is a running total and doesn't correspond directly, on a month to month basis, with the number of transfers requested. Further, we do not know anything about the recipient organizations including block size requested, previous ARIN customer or new ISP, ISP or End-User, size of last allocation from the free pool...and most importantly, whether 24 months was too short a window to obtain transfer approval. So what statistical evidence will constitute success or failure of the current 24-month justification period? Jeff Mehlenbacher IPv4 Market Group Email: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers From: Owen DeLong Date: Wed, June 27, 2012 9:55 pm To: Scott Leibrand Cc: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com, arin-ppml at arin.net On Jun 27, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: The concern is not about the speed of free pool depletion (at least from my perspective). Afterall, we're talking about transfers -- addresses which by definition are already not part of the free pool. However, the goal of ARIN policy is also not to optimize for your particular business model. The goal of ARIN policy is to see that addresses are held by those that have justified need. I would agree that this is the goal we're trying to optimize for. A 60 month justified need for a resource as constrained as IPv4 is simply will not further that policy goal and will, in fact, be contrary to it. I agree that with a 60 month justified need threshold we do have a risk of organizations will acquire more space than they have immediate need for, and that the addresses will not be in use for some time after they're transferred. However, there is another case we need to be sure not to ignore. If organizations holding (and not using) legacy space are disinclined to transfer it due to ARIN's restrictions, then those addresses will not be in use (or held by those that have justified need) either. I'm not sure that 60 months is the right threshold at this time, but I do think we need to figure out how to balance the incentive for address holders to release space to those with justified need against the possibility that organizations will acquire more addresses than they have immediate need for. -Scott Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try to push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the wrong direction. Owen From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Thu Jun 28 06:25:26 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:25:26 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120628032526.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.c3b17d5e2b.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Dan, I appreciate the background. I think there is a very important distinction that need be made regarding the community's concern that stretching the period to five years will result in trading one underutilized resource holder for another. The current legacy holders under contract with IPv4 Market Group will likely "never" utilize these resources. The intended recipients however will be classified as either ISPs or End-users and will definitely utilize the transferred resources over time or they would not obtain Board approval to spend significant coin on an IPv4 address block. Regarding timeframes and reviewing data that illustrates benefits or consequences, please see my most recent posting. I have a real concern that the body of data available for assessment is neither comprehensive nor focused on dictating success or failure of the current 24 month justification period. I would be interested in understanding what data will be monitored to determine the appropriateness of current policy for 8.3s. Thanks! Jeff Mehlenbacher Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:11:24 +0000 From: "Alexander, Daniel" To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Jeff, One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3 transfers claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to use. By stretching the period to five years, we start trading one underutilized resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to the claimed benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who objected to these transactions. No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand the timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before having any data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes that have been made. While I don't claim to know what the magic number should be, I think this change would be irresponsible at this time, based only on the speculations made on this mailing list. I'm opposed to this proposal. Dan Alexander Speaking as myself From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 28 07:14:19 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:14:19 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <633922EF-9076-43E5-9A5F-88F1A675C070@delong.com> On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:05 AM, wrote: > I understand your desire to sit tight and assess statistical evidence > before suggesting a longer justification period is required. My concern > with such a strategy is the decided lack of comprehensive transfer > market data. We have only the ARIN Specified Transfer Listing Service > (STLS) and ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers (# Requested / # Completed). > Is there another source you would consider useful to assess the > appropriateness of extending the 24 months justification period? I consider that adequate. (primarily the latter and not the former). > The STLS would suggest there is no market at all. In 2012, there was an > update in February (a Facilitator was added) and two updates in June (a > Facilitator was removed and another added). The last and only Seeker > (Needer/Buyer) was December 2011 and it was a post-facto pre-approval of > a public transaction in progress. Only two Listers (Sellers) have ever > posted since November 2010...the most recent Lister being October 2011. > It may be safe to say the STLS is a vehicle that doesn't attract > interest and thus cannot be used as a reliable statistical measure for > the purpose of monitoring the appropriateness of the current > justification period. Now, if we implemented 60 months justification > for a 1-year period and monitored uptake on the STLS for > Listers/Seekers, that might be evidence that longer justification > periods a) bring unused resources (listers) to market and b) bring > organizations with need (seekers) forward. The fact that transfers have been completed would suggest that there is a market at a time when rational policy would render one irrelevant or at least nearly non-existant. So long as there is a free pool, policy which makes transfers more attractive is contrary to the good of the community. Judging anything about specified transfers and policy effect therein is premature until after free pool runout. > ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers further suggests the market is far from > vibrant: 24 requested in 2011; 12 requested 2012 year-to-date. The > issue with these statistics is the limited insight one can glean. Yes, > the number of completed transfers is published but it is a running total > and doesn't correspond directly, on a month to month basis, with the > number of transfers requested. Further, we do not know anything about > the recipient organizations including block size requested, previous > ARIN customer or new ISP, ISP or End-User, size of last allocation from > the free pool...and most importantly, whether 24 months was too short a > window to obtain transfer approval. Far from vibrant is the desired and rational state prior to runout as far as I am concerned, so I am not seeing the problem. I realize this doesn't necessarily help your business model, but, I think it is in line with the intent of the community. The market is currently competing against essentially free allocations and assignments (after all, you have to pay registration fees after you transfer through the market anyway, so, there's no price advantage there). This means that the only advantage to purchasing through the market at this time is the convenience of a longer allocation or assignment period. This should result in a small and lack-luster market until free pool exhaustion and as near as I can tell, the result is in line with that intent. > So what statistical evidence will constitute success or failure of the > current 24-month justification period? Let's see what the transfer statistics look like 6-12 months after ARIN free pool exhaustion. At that point, if there are still not many transfers, then I will accept that 8.3 is not working as intended. Until that time, I would argue that increasing the number of transfers by skewing policy to give undue advantage to market transfers over free pool allocations/assignments is contrary to good stewardship. Owen From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Thu Jun 28 08:09:37 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:09:37 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120628050937.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.31fbe0fd2e.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> No shortage of innovation in this suggestion but it runs contrary to motivating companies to transfer unused resources to companies in need. It's entirely punitive and simply restrains trade...which is presumably the intent. I would add that you are creating enormous incentive for companies to execute transfers outside of ARIN. Our policy proposal for 60 months is intended to encourage companies to work within the policy framework for 8.3 transfers. Jeff Mehlenbacher -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers From: Jimmy Hess Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 2:19 am To: Owen DeLong Cc: Scott Leibrand , jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com, arin-ppml at arin.net On 6/27/12, Owen DeLong wrote: > Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try to > push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the wrong > direction. Perhaps ARIN should eliminate the number of months as a hard policy value, and stipulate that the addresses will be ineligible for further specified transfers for at least twice the number of months' supply, the remaining restriction period is added to addresses obtained through any further addresses received by transfer/aggregation/renumbering request, and ARIN will charge an additional premium FEE for transfer of addresses, for more than a 6 month's supply of addresses, based on the number of months supply of addresses, a minimum transfer premium of $10 per IP address contained in the block, and variable based on ARIN staffs' opinion of a "market" value of the addresses, the premium to be set at 1.5x the estimated present value of the number of additional IP addresses allowed to be transferred times the number of months in the future before the IP addresses corresponding to that future month's supply are expected to be required. And no less than a 25% additional increase in transfer fee for each additional "month's supply of addresses" to be added for each month's supply of addresses after the 6th month. Transfer premium proceeds to be used to offer an incentive for the return of addresses to the free pool. In other words... if you really need a 60-month supply of addresses; it is feasible, but will cost you, depending on the number of IP addresses that actually is. Theoretically, it wouldn't be responsible to go through with the transfer then, unless you really needed the IPs. > Owen -- -JH From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Thu Jun 28 09:36:39 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:36:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120628063639.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.8dd2ce8667.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only with the people and organizations who base their business models on evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer policy proposals on that basis. Jeff Mehlenbacher Let's see what the transfer statistics look like 6-12 months after ARIN free pool exhaustion. At that point, if there are still not many transfers, then I will accept that 8.3 is not working as intended. Until that time, I would argue that increasing the number of transfers by skewing policy to give undue advantage to market transfers over free pool allocations/assignments is contrary to good stewardship. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers From: Owen DeLong Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 7:14 am To: Cc: "Scott Leibrand" , arin-ppml at arin.net On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:05 AM, wrote: > I understand your desire to sit tight and assess statistical evidence > before suggesting a longer justification period is required. My concern > with such a strategy is the decided lack of comprehensive transfer > market data. We have only the ARIN Specified Transfer Listing Service > (STLS) and ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers (# Requested / # Completed). > Is there another source you would consider useful to assess the > appropriateness of extending the 24 months justification period? I consider that adequate. (primarily the latter and not the former). > The STLS would suggest there is no market at all. In 2012, there was an > update in February (a Facilitator was added) and two updates in June (a > Facilitator was removed and another added). The last and only Seeker > (Needer/Buyer) was December 2011 and it was a post-facto pre-approval of > a public transaction in progress. Only two Listers (Sellers) have ever > posted since November 2010...the most recent Lister being October 2011. > It may be safe to say the STLS is a vehicle that doesn't attract > interest and thus cannot be used as a reliable statistical measure for > the purpose of monitoring the appropriateness of the current > justification period. Now, if we implemented 60 months justification > for a 1-year period and monitored uptake on the STLS for > Listers/Seekers, that might be evidence that longer justification > periods a) bring unused resources (listers) to market and b) bring > organizations with need (seekers) forward. The fact that transfers have been completed would suggest that there is a market at a time when rational policy would render one irrelevant or at least nearly non-existant. So long as there is a free pool, policy which makes transfers more attractive is contrary to the good of the community. Judging anything about specified transfers and policy effect therein is premature until after free pool runout. > ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers further suggests the market is far from > vibrant: 24 requested in 2011; 12 requested 2012 year-to-date. The > issue with these statistics is the limited insight one can glean. Yes, > the number of completed transfers is published but it is a running total > and doesn't correspond directly, on a month to month basis, with the > number of transfers requested. Further, we do not know anything about > the recipient organizations including block size requested, previous > ARIN customer or new ISP, ISP or End-User, size of last allocation from > the free pool...and most importantly, whether 24 months was too short a > window to obtain transfer approval. Far from vibrant is the desired and rational state prior to runout as far as I am concerned, so I am not seeing the problem. I realize this doesn't necessarily help your business model, but, I think it is in line with the intent of the community. The market is currently competing against essentially free allocations and assignments (after all, you have to pay registration fees after you transfer through the market anyway, so, there's no price advantage there). This means that the only advantage to purchasing through the market at this time is the convenience of a longer allocation or assignment period. This should result in a small and lack-luster market until free pool exhaustion and as near as I can tell, the result is in line with that intent. > So what statistical evidence will constitute success or failure of the > current 24-month justification period? Let's see what the transfer statistics look like 6-12 months after ARIN free pool exhaustion. At that point, if there are still not many transfers, then I will accept that 8.3 is not working as intended. Until that time, I would argue that increasing the number of transfers by skewing policy to give undue advantage to market transfers over free pool allocations/assignments is contrary to good stewardship. Owen From cb.list6 at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 10:03:00 2012 From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Cameron Byrne) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:03:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <633922EF-9076-43E5-9A5F-88F1A675C070@delong.com> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <633922EF-9076-43E5-9A5F-88F1A675C070@delong.com> Message-ID: On Jun 28, 2012 4:17 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:05 AM, wrote: > > > I understand your desire to sit tight and assess statistical evidence > > before suggesting a longer justification period is required. My concern > > with such a strategy is the decided lack of comprehensive transfer > > market data. We have only the ARIN Specified Transfer Listing Service > > (STLS) and ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers (# Requested / # Completed). > > Is there another source you would consider useful to assess the > > appropriateness of extending the 24 months justification period? > > I consider that adequate. (primarily the latter and not the former). > > > > The STLS would suggest there is no market at all. In 2012, there was an > > update in February (a Facilitator was added) and two updates in June (a > > Facilitator was removed and another added). The last and only Seeker > > (Needer/Buyer) was December 2011 and it was a post-facto pre-approval of > > a public transaction in progress. Only two Listers (Sellers) have ever > > posted since November 2010...the most recent Lister being October 2011. > > It may be safe to say the STLS is a vehicle that doesn't attract > > interest and thus cannot be used as a reliable statistical measure for > > the purpose of monitoring the appropriateness of the current > > justification period. Now, if we implemented 60 months justification > > for a 1-year period and monitored uptake on the STLS for > > Listers/Seekers, that might be evidence that longer justification > > periods a) bring unused resources (listers) to market and b) bring > > organizations with need (seekers) forward. > > The fact that transfers have been completed would suggest that there is > a market at a time when rational policy would render one irrelevant or > at least nearly non-existant. So long as there is a free pool, policy which > makes transfers more attractive is contrary to the good of the community. > > Judging anything about specified transfers and policy effect therein is > premature until after free pool runout. > > > ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers further suggests the market is far from > > vibrant: 24 requested in 2011; 12 requested 2012 year-to-date. The > > issue with these statistics is the limited insight one can glean. Yes, > > the number of completed transfers is published but it is a running total > > and doesn't correspond directly, on a month to month basis, with the > > number of transfers requested. Further, we do not know anything about > > the recipient organizations including block size requested, previous > > ARIN customer or new ISP, ISP or End-User, size of last allocation from > > the free pool...and most importantly, whether 24 months was too short a > > window to obtain transfer approval. > > Far from vibrant is the desired and rational state prior to runout as far as > I am concerned, so I am not seeing the problem. I realize this doesn't > necessarily help your business model, but, I think it is in line with the > intent of the community. The market is currently competing against > essentially free allocations and assignments (after all, you have to pay > registration fees after you transfer through the market anyway, so, > there's no price advantage there). This means that the only advantage > to purchasing through the market at this time is the convenience of > a longer allocation or assignment period. > > This should result in a small and lack-luster market until free pool > exhaustion and as near as I can tell, the result is in line with that > intent. > > > So what statistical evidence will constitute success or failure of the > > current 24-month justification period? > > Let's see what the transfer statistics look like 6-12 months after ARIN > free pool exhaustion. At that point, if there are still not many transfers, > then I will accept that 8.3 is not working as intended. Until that time, > I would argue that increasing the number of transfers by skewing > policy to give undue advantage to market transfers over free pool > allocations/assignments is contrary to good stewardship. > > Owen > > +1 to Owen's comments. Opposed to 176. CB _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tvest at eyeconomics.com Thu Jun 28 11:59:26 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:59:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120628032526.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.c3b17d5e2b.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628032526.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.c3b17d5e2b.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Hi Jeff, Out of curiosity, could you suggest ( at min.) one set of data that would be sufficient, in your view, to determine the appropriateness of a(ny) IP number resource transfer market, under current or any other imaginable policy criteria? How would you define "appropriateness" and what sort of data would you need to make such a judgment? If this question seems too abstract, perhaps you could point us to some other, well-established market that demonstrably satisfies its own "appropriateness" criteria based on "objective" data that is, if not publicly available, at least available to some disinterested "appropriateness evaluators"? Thanks, Tom Vest On Jun 28, 2012, at 6:25 AM, wrote: > I have a real concern that the body of data available for assessment is neither comprehensive > nor focused on dictating success or failure of the current 24 month > justification period. I would be interested in understanding what data > will be monitored to determine the appropriateness of current policy for > 8.3s. > > Thanks! > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > > Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:11:24 +0000 > From: "Alexander, Daniel" > To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Jeff, > > One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3 > transfers > claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to use. By > stretching the period to five years, we start trading one underutilized > resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to the claimed > benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who objected to these > transactions. > > No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand > the > timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before having any > data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes that have been > made. While I don't claim to know what the magic number should be, I > think > this change would be irresponsible at this time, based only on the > speculations made on this mailing list. > > I'm opposed to this proposal. > > Dan Alexander > Speaking as myself > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Thu Jun 28 13:38:14 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:38:14 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) Message-ID: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> It is out of line that a member of the ARIN AC would attack the business model of IPv4 Market Group in this forum. All Jeff Mehlenbacher has done is propose a policy. He does not sit in conflict on the AC where he votes on policies that affect his business. And that is what most AC members do every day. May I make a suggestion that any member of the AC who is remotely in conflict on an issue should recuse themselves from voting or opining on an issue. Consider the case of Owen, whose company would benefit from a faster conversion to IPV6, and whose attitudes on policy suggest he would not like to see IPv4 made more readily available: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try to push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the wrong direction. Owen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we wait another 24 months while companies clamor for IPv4, whose company would that benefit, Owen? Is this an unbiased opinion? Don't you think you should recuse yourself or perhaps step down from the AC for espousing an opinion that benefits your company and does not benefit the community at large? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And Mr Dan Alexander, how can you have an opinion on needing IPv4 addresses, when the ARIN clearly took care of its own in 2010? How can someone from Comcast possibly speak as myself? Are you offering to recuse yourself from Comcast for the 30 minutes you look at ARIN stuff? Did you recuse yourself from ARIN when Comcast was granted the large allocation in 2010? http://www.internetgovernance.org/2010/11/02/arin-grants-comcast-ipv4-mega-allocation/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm opposed to this proposal. Dan Alexander Speaking as myself --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the ARIN AC and Board should consider conflict of interest situations and when it is appropriate and not appropriate to voice an opinion and to vote on issues in front of the Board. And I would not be saying this if the business model of our company was not attacked by a member of the ARIN AC in this forum - totally inappropriate behavior even for a body that has members in constant conflict and is above normal business ethics. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think it's time the silent minority scolded the AC for this bad behavior. Your support in suggesting that the AC members not vote on issues where they self-benefit, would be a great help to a free market internet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Secondly, I am highly critical of ARIN, the ARIN AC, and the ARIN Board, for not understanding their most important function and purpose with respect to legacy addresses. If you truly want to protect and safeguard the Internet, consider the following: The most important function ARIN can provide with respect to legacy resources is an accurate registry. Failure to do this jeopardizes the financial and social safety of the internet. Current ARIN policies in fact do not ensure an accurate registry and thus do not support a safe Internet. Today many legacy address holders do not have contracts with ARIN. The prudent ones avoid contracts with ARIN because they correctly recognize legacy addresses will ultimately be worth more than non legacy addresses on the open market. A /16 seller typically complies with ARIN policy in selling because it is not worth the relatively small sale proceeds to risk ARIN?s threat of court action, even though there is little likelihood that ARIN would prevail in court. A larger block seller is not afraid of the court costs or of losing in court, but may fear the stigma of publicity. When a legacy IP holder chooses not to comply with ARIN policies, problems begin, because the IP holder also dodges the registry update step. When there is no corresponding registry to reflect these transactions, it opens the door for ISPs to receive other announcement requests without ARIN registrations and then hijacking and misuse becomes easier. Over time, as the ARIN registry has less relevance, the registry becomes meaningless as a tool to determine who has permission to use IPs and then control becomes more ad hoc. It is then that I believe that financial and possibly social misuse of ips will become more common. The ARIN AC should realize that while it may never face a legal challenge for the reasons outlined two paragraphs ago, it does have a social responsibility. IP sales are now common. The right thing to do would be to: 1) cease to attempt to govern resources over which ARIN has no legal right. RIPE and APNIC don't govern legacy resources and the precedent they set should be followed by ARIN. 2) Allow transfers of otherwise dormant resources with no needs justifications so long as the recipient organizations can be classified as an ISP or end user per the NRPM (there I even threw in some ARIN-ese). Otherwise they sit unused and no one benefits. If you don't stop needs justifications on these blocks, too many of these transactions go underground. 3). If you just don't get it, as clearly Owen and others don't want to (apparently speaking only as themselves?), a 60 month justification period is a poor compromise. 24 months won't keep a transaction from going underground. We see that today as legitimate buyers approach us and then disappear after they learn from us that they fail the ARIN prequalification. So while the ARIN?s AC policy making rules are fine in a bubble, the real world is not a bubble. IPs have escalating value, and many IPs will be used by entities not listed in ARIN?s registry. I do not see how ARIN can reclaim a valued resource from a company that is profiting from it, especially when sister RIR?s, RIPE and APNIC, do not make similar claims. As the ARIN registry becomes more inaccurate within the current ARIN policies, then it will continue to become easier and easier for highjacking and misuse. And I have not even spoken to Milton's free market arguments, which by the way, are absolutely correct. The ARIN policies are like wage and price controls gone mad. Sandra Brown From christoph.blecker at ubc.ca Thu Jun 28 14:13:47 2012 From: christoph.blecker at ubc.ca (Blecker, Christoph) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:13:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) In-Reply-To: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC2290@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com > Sent: June-28-12 10:38 AM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to > 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) > [snip] > > Secondly, I am highly critical of ARIN, the ARIN AC, and the ARIN Board, > for not understanding their most important function and purpose with > respect to legacy addresses. If you truly want to protect and safeguard > the Internet, consider the following: > > The most important function ARIN can provide with respect to legacy > resources is an accurate registry. Failure to do this jeopardizes the > financial and social safety of the internet. > > Current ARIN policies in fact do not ensure an accurate registry and > thus do not support a safe Internet. > > Today many legacy address holders do not have contracts with ARIN. The > prudent ones avoid contracts with ARIN because they correctly recognize > legacy addresses will ultimately be worth more than non legacy addresses > on the open market. > > A /16 seller typically complies with ARIN policy in selling because it > is not worth the relatively small sale proceeds to risk ARIN?s threat > of court action, even though there is little likelihood that ARIN would > prevail in court. A larger block seller is not afraid of the court costs > or of losing in court, but may fear the stigma of publicity. > > When a legacy IP holder chooses not to comply with ARIN policies, > problems begin, because the IP holder also dodges the registry update > step. When there is no corresponding registry to reflect these > transactions, it opens the door for ISPs to receive other announcement > requests without ARIN registrations and then hijacking and misuse > becomes easier. Over time, as the ARIN registry has less relevance, the > registry becomes meaningless as a tool to determine who has permission > to use IPs and then control becomes more ad hoc. It is then that I > believe that financial and possibly social misuse of ips will become > more common. > [snip] Sandra, The true power of ARIN and it's registry isn't divine. It's not provided by some ICANN deity. It's not provided by the government. It's not even provided by contracts or agreements. The power of the registry comes from the internet community that recognizes it. It's worth saying again.. The *power* of the registry comes from the _internet community_ that recognizes it. That is the paramount concept to keep in mind here. Large end user companies actually have very little power. It's the Internet Service Providers, both here in the Americas, and around the world, that make the internet as a whole and the registry system work. Sure, anybody could make their own registry and say "HEY GUYS, I NOW OWN 24/8 AND SCREW YOUR POLICIES". Good luck though trying to get routing for that block. Without speaking to the validity of your business model, the reality is, you're brokering the right to a number. Very specific numbers, with very specific purposes. If the numbers that a company buys won't work in the way expected, because the seller and broker decided to side-step the registry system, then somebody will be very unhappy to say the least. Now you're all smart people, and I'm sure you very clearly realize this. However, attempting to strong-arm the community by saying that we will become irrelevant and open the internet to all sorts of problems if we don't submit to the will of the all-mighty market.. well it's just not the case. Work *with* us, not *against* us. It was great for Jeff to start the discussion here, and I think most agree that it's a worthy discussion to have. Sure, there are lots of competing interests here. But starting to attack the integrity of the community, it's members, the process, and everybody within arm's reach when the mailing list disagrees with your proposal will get nobody anywhere. Best regards, -- Christoph Blecker The University of British Columbia From christoph.blecker at ubc.ca Thu Jun 28 14:18:34 2012 From: christoph.blecker at ubc.ca (Blecker, Christoph) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:18:34 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120628063639.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.8dd2ce8667.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628063639.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.8dd2ce8667.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC229F@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com > Sent: June-28-12 6:37 AM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to > 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > > Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business > model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out > (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another > 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other > statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't > terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding > your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 > justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of > "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position > while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 > followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. > > Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with > prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those > that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free > allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the > justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified > Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused > IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers > prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only > with the people and organizations who base their business models on > evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer > policy proposals on that basis. > > Jeff Mehlenbacher Hi Jeff, I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things like IPv6 uptake and such, the major concern is that networks can't reasonably plan what things will look like 5 years from now. Unless this is the case, perhaps it would be better not to dance around the issue and propose removing the needs-based requirement from 8.3 transfers all together. Without more details on what a reasonable 60-month IPv4 usage forecast looks like, I cannot support the proposal as written. Best regards, -- Christoph Blecker The University of British Columbia From paul at redbarn.org Thu Jun 28 15:00:03 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:00:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) In-Reply-To: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC2290@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> References: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC2290@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <4FECA9B3.7090009@redbarn.org> On 6/28/2012 6:13 PM, Blecker, Christoph wrote: > ... However, attempting to strong-arm the community by saying that we will become irrelevant and open the internet to all sorts of problems if we don't submit to the will of the all-mighty market.. well it's just not the case. > > Work *with* us, not *against* us. It was great for Jeff to start the discussion here, and I think most agree that it's a worthy discussion to have. Sure, there are lots of competing interests here. But starting to attack the integrity of the community, it's members, the process, and everybody within arm's reach when the mailing list disagrees with your proposal will get nobody anywhere. +1. paul From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jun 28 15:41:28 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:41:28 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4FECB368.2050106@umn.edu> On 6/28/12 05:05 CDT, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > I understand your desire to sit tight and assess statistical evidence > before suggesting a longer justification period is required. My concern > with such a strategy is the decided lack of comprehensive transfer > market data. We have only the ARIN Specified Transfer Listing Service > (STLS) and ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers (# Requested / # Completed). > Is there another source you would consider useful to assess the > appropriateness of extending the 24 months justification period? While I'm not sure we can sit tight either, I do understand the desire for more information. For those of you who think we need to extend the justification window, this is why I suggested that some modeling or other or other predictive analysis would be useful. For those of you who say we should sit tight, the earliest this can go into effect is around the end of the year. But more likely this is going to take more than one policy cycle, so realistically we're talking about this being implemented this time next year, or maybe even longer. So I wold like to start the conversation now, its going to take time to build the necessary consensus. > The STLS would suggest there is no market at all. In 2012, there was an > update in February (a Facilitator was added) and two updates in June (a > Facilitator was removed and another added). The last and only Seeker > (Needer/Buyer) was December 2011 and it was a post-facto pre-approval of > a public transaction in progress. Only two Listers (Sellers) have ever > posted since November 2010...the most recent Lister being October 2011. > It may be safe to say the STLS is a vehicle that doesn't attract > interest and thus cannot be used as a reliable statistical measure for > the purpose of monitoring the appropriateness of the current > justification period. Now, if we implemented 60 months justification > for a 1-year period and monitored uptake on the STLS for > Listers/Seekers, that might be evidence that longer justification > periods a) bring unused resources (listers) to market and b) bring > organizations with need (seekers) forward. > > ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers further suggests the market is far from > vibrant: 24 requested in 2011; 12 requested 2012 year-to-date. The > issue with these statistics is the limited insight one can glean. Yes, > the number of completed transfers is published but it is a running total > and doesn't correspond directly, on a month to month basis, with the > number of transfers requested. Further, we do not know anything about > the recipient organizations including block size requested, previous > ARIN customer or new ISP, ISP or End-User, size of last allocation from > the free pool...and most importantly, whether 24 months was too short a > window to obtain transfer approval. > > So what statistical evidence will constitute success or failure of the > current 24-month justification period? I think it was important to get the market started, I believe the change to 24 months was important for that to happen. If we had tried for 36 months last fall, we still might be arguing about it Going for 24 months last fall I believe got the market rolling. However, with there still being a significant free pool it doesn't greatly concern me that we are not see an extremely vibrant market just yet. I think it is good to start off slow, but we needed to get things started. So from that point of view 24 months has been successful. This is why I supported 24 months as a first step. I believe that a next step is needed, I'm not sure if that is 36, 48, or 60 months, or the exact timing, now (6 months), soon (12 month), or a little longer (18 to 24 months) out, but I do think we will need a next step and it is important to start the discussion now. I also think we should even consider other options like a triggered policy, maybe when the free pool gets to some level (say one /8) then go to 36, 48, or 60 months. Remember predictability is what people are looking for, this is why I believe even if you don't agree we should change it yet, you should want to start the conversation. Believe it or not I believe we are making progress. We (the community) have decided we need transfers, that we want to maintain justified need, and the need window is probably the primary knob that we can make adjustments with. These are all good things, and I think we are building a win-win scenario here. Even though IPv4 run-out might look like a zero-sum game, the Internet is not, remember Metcalfe's law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law No one here has absolute authority here, even ARIN, but no one has an absolute right to do as they please and ignore everyone else either, or we all loose, because that would kill the network effect we are all benefiting from. Therefore, we have to keep working together, and we do so because the network effect tells us it is in our own self interest to do so. The most important thing I ask both extremes to do is stop attacking each other and focus your efforts on persuading the rest of us on the. So as I've said, I'm skeptical of 60 months, but think a next step is necessary. I would like a constructive conversion on; How fare the next step should be, 36, 48, or 60 all seem like logical options; And, when now (6 months), 12, 18, or 24 months out, or maybe triggered. Are there other that make sense? What do you think? Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 28 16:33:17 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:33:17 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) In-Reply-To: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <2DEE3DAB-AA63-44F0-AB51-78F856F0F30B@delong.com> I did not attack Jeff's business model. I pointed out that he has a vested profit interest in moving policy as close to unrestricted transfers as possible. I further pointed out that I did not feel that was good for the community. I did this as myself and not speaking as an AC member or on behalf of the AC. I have no conflict of interest and merely believing that a proposal represents bad policy is not a valid reason for me to recuse myself. My company profits greatly from prolonged conversion pain, actually. However, you are correct that I believe that isn't good for the Internet as a whole. I have voted against my company's interest on multiple occasions and my management well understands that I represent the community and not HE when voting as a member of the AC. Owen Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2012, at 13:38, wrote: > It is out of line that a member of the ARIN AC would attack the business > model of IPv4 Market Group in this forum. All Jeff Mehlenbacher has > done is propose a policy. He does not sit in conflict on the AC where > he votes on policies that affect his business. And that is what most AC > members do every day. > > May I make a suggestion that any member of the AC who is remotely in > conflict on an issue should recuse themselves from voting or opining on > an issue. Consider the case of Owen, whose company would benefit from a > faster conversion to IPV6, and whose attitudes on policy suggest he > would not like to see IPv4 made more readily available: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try > to push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the > wrong direction. > > Owen > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > If we wait another 24 months while companies clamor for IPv4, whose > company would that benefit, Owen? Is this an unbiased opinion? Don't > you think you should recuse yourself or perhaps step down from the AC > for espousing an opinion that benefits your company and does not benefit > the community at large? > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > And Mr Dan Alexander, how can you have an opinion on needing IPv4 > addresses, when the ARIN clearly took care of its own in 2010? How can > someone from Comcast possibly speak as myself? Are you offering to > recuse yourself from Comcast for the 30 minutes you look at ARIN stuff? > Did you recuse yourself from ARIN when Comcast was granted the large > allocation in 2010? > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2010/11/02/arin-grants-comcast-ipv4-mega-allocation/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm opposed to this proposal. > > Dan Alexander > Speaking as myself > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think the ARIN AC and Board should consider conflict of interest > situations and when it is appropriate and not appropriate to voice an > opinion and to vote on issues in front of the Board. And I would not be > saying this if the business model of our company was not attacked by a > member of the ARIN AC in this forum - totally inappropriate behavior > even for a body that has members in constant conflict and is above > normal business ethics. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I think it's time the silent minority scolded the AC for this bad > behavior. Your support in suggesting that the AC members not vote on > issues where they self-benefit, would be a great help to a free market > internet. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Secondly, I am highly critical of ARIN, the ARIN AC, and the ARIN Board, > for not understanding their most important function and purpose with > respect to legacy addresses. If you truly want to protect and safeguard > the Internet, consider the following: > > The most important function ARIN can provide with respect to legacy > resources is an accurate registry. Failure to do this jeopardizes the > financial and social safety of the internet. > > Current ARIN policies in fact do not ensure an accurate registry and > thus do not support a safe Internet. > > Today many legacy address holders do not have contracts with ARIN. The > prudent ones avoid contracts with ARIN because they correctly recognize > legacy addresses will ultimately be worth more than non legacy addresses > on the open market. > > A /16 seller typically complies with ARIN policy in selling because it > is not worth the relatively small sale proceeds to risk ARIN?s threat > of court action, even though there is little likelihood that ARIN would > prevail in court. A larger block seller is not afraid of the court costs > or of losing in court, but may fear the stigma of publicity. > > When a legacy IP holder chooses not to comply with ARIN policies, > problems begin, because the IP holder also dodges the registry update > step. When there is no corresponding registry to reflect these > transactions, it opens the door for ISPs to receive other announcement > requests without ARIN registrations and then hijacking and misuse > becomes easier. Over time, as the ARIN registry has less relevance, the > registry becomes meaningless as a tool to determine who has permission > to use IPs and then control becomes more ad hoc. It is then that I > believe that financial and possibly social misuse of ips will become > more common. > > The ARIN AC should realize that while it may never face a legal > challenge for the reasons outlined two paragraphs ago, it does have a > social responsibility. IP sales are now common. The right thing to do > would be to: > > 1) cease to attempt to govern resources over which ARIN has no legal > right. RIPE and APNIC don't govern legacy resources and the precedent > they set should be followed by ARIN. > 2) Allow transfers of otherwise dormant resources with no needs > justifications so long as the recipient organizations can be classified > as an ISP or end user per the NRPM (there I even threw in some > ARIN-ese). Otherwise they sit unused and no one benefits. If you don't > stop needs justifications on these blocks, too many of these > transactions go underground. > 3). If you just don't get it, as clearly Owen and others don't want to > (apparently speaking only as themselves?), a 60 month justification > period is a poor compromise. 24 months won't keep a transaction from > going underground. We see that today as legitimate buyers approach us > and then disappear after they learn from us that they fail the ARIN > prequalification. > > So while the ARIN?s AC policy making rules are fine in a bubble, the > real world is not a bubble. IPs have escalating value, and many IPs will > be used by entities not listed in ARIN?s registry. I do not see how > ARIN can reclaim a valued resource from a company that is profiting from > it, especially when sister RIR?s, RIPE and APNIC, do not make similar > claims. As the ARIN registry becomes more inaccurate within the current > ARIN policies, then it will continue to become easier and easier for > highjacking and misuse. > > And I have not even spoken to Milton's free market arguments, which by > the way, are absolutely correct. The ARIN policies are like wage and > price controls gone mad. > > Sandra Brown > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 28 16:41:42 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:41:42 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120628063639.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.8dd2ce8667.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628063639.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.8dd2ce8667.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <1FD64977-1429-4519-BFAB-D66AF3A2E786@delong.com> Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2012, at 9:36, wrote: > Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business > model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out > (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another > 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other > statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't > terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding > your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 > justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of > "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position > while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 > followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. > If such transfers create enough of a market to have some statistical viability, I'm fine with looking earlier. My point is that the current lack of a vibrant market does not in and of itself represent a policy failure. A vibrant market this early would, in fact indicate that the policy was too wide open. > Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with > prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those > that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free > allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the > justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified > Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused > IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers > prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only > with the people and organizations who base their business models on > evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer > policy proposals on that basis. I don't doubt that. The question, however is whether that would be good for the Internet. Geoff Huston has an excellent presentation where he explains the dangers inherent in RIR runout skew. (different runout dates in the regions) Indeed, a primary goal of the last 5 policy was to reduce that skew and narrow the time gap between various RIR runout dates. Unfortunately, hat policy had the somewhat opposite effect, compounded by the early trigger date in the three Month policy. Making that even worse by encouraging the behavior you describe above could be very harmful, making CGN and NAT64 effectively permanent structures of the Internet. Current local NAT is bad enough. Let's not deliberately make the situation even worse. Owen > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > > Let's see what the transfer statistics look like 6-12 months after ARIN > free pool exhaustion. At that point, if there are still not many > transfers, > then I will accept that 8.3 is not working as intended. Until that time, > I would argue that increasing the number of transfers by skewing > policy to give undue advantage to market transfers over free pool > allocations/assignments is contrary to good stewardship. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > From: Owen DeLong > Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 7:14 am > To: > Cc: "Scott Leibrand" , arin-ppml at arin.net > > > On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:05 AM, > wrote: > >> I understand your desire to sit tight and assess statistical evidence >> before suggesting a longer justification period is required. My concern >> with such a strategy is the decided lack of comprehensive transfer >> market data. We have only the ARIN Specified Transfer Listing Service >> (STLS) and ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers (# Requested / # Completed). >> Is there another source you would consider useful to assess the >> appropriateness of extending the 24 months justification period? > > I consider that adequate. (primarily the latter and not the former). > > >> The STLS would suggest there is no market at all. In 2012, there was an >> update in February (a Facilitator was added) and two updates in June (a >> Facilitator was removed and another added). The last and only Seeker >> (Needer/Buyer) was December 2011 and it was a post-facto pre-approval of >> a public transaction in progress. Only two Listers (Sellers) have ever >> posted since November 2010...the most recent Lister being October 2011. >> It may be safe to say the STLS is a vehicle that doesn't attract >> interest and thus cannot be used as a reliable statistical measure for >> the purpose of monitoring the appropriateness of the current >> justification period. Now, if we implemented 60 months justification >> for a 1-year period and monitored uptake on the STLS for >> Listers/Seekers, that might be evidence that longer justification >> periods a) bring unused resources (listers) to market and b) bring >> organizations with need (seekers) forward. > > The fact that transfers have been completed would suggest that there is > a market at a time when rational policy would render one irrelevant or > at least nearly non-existant. So long as there is a free pool, policy > which > makes transfers more attractive is contrary to the good of the > community. > > Judging anything about specified transfers and policy effect therein is > premature until after free pool runout. > >> ARIN Statistics on 8.3 transfers further suggests the market is far from >> vibrant: 24 requested in 2011; 12 requested 2012 year-to-date. The >> issue with these statistics is the limited insight one can glean. Yes, >> the number of completed transfers is published but it is a running total >> and doesn't correspond directly, on a month to month basis, with the >> number of transfers requested. Further, we do not know anything about >> the recipient organizations including block size requested, previous >> ARIN customer or new ISP, ISP or End-User, size of last allocation from >> the free pool...and most importantly, whether 24 months was too short a >> window to obtain transfer approval. > > Far from vibrant is the desired and rational state prior to runout as > far as > I am concerned, so I am not seeing the problem. I realize this doesn't > necessarily help your business model, but, I think it is in line with > the > intent of the community. The market is currently competing against > essentially free allocations and assignments (after all, you have to pay > registration fees after you transfer through the market anyway, so, > there's no price advantage there). This means that the only advantage > to purchasing through the market at this time is the convenience of > a longer allocation or assignment period. > > This should result in a small and lack-luster market until free pool > exhaustion and as near as I can tell, the result is in line with that > intent. > >> So what statistical evidence will constitute success or failure of the >> current 24-month justification period? > > Let's see what the transfer statistics look like 6-12 months after ARIN > free pool exhaustion. At that point, if there are still not many > transfers, > then I will accept that 8.3 is not working as intended. Until that time, > I would argue that increasing the number of transfers by skewing > policy to give undue advantage to market transfers over free pool > allocations/assignments is contrary to good stewardship. > > Owen > From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Thu Jun 28 16:54:22 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:54:22 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FECC47E.8050503@burnttofu.net> On 06/28/2012 01:11, Alexander, Daniel wrote: > Jeff, > > One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3 transfers > claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to use. By > stretching the period to five years, we start trading one underutilized > resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to the claimed > benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who objected to these > transactions. > > No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand the > timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before having any > data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes that have been > made. While I don't claim to know what the magic number should be, I think > this change would be irresponsible at this time, based only on the > speculations made on this mailing list. > > I'm opposed to this proposal. +1 There needs to be a sweet spot between allowing a free and *competitive* market for IPv4 addresses and one in which a few speculators are allow to corner and massively distort the market. From a theoretical perspective, I believe that sweet spot is going to be 36 months, although I want to give the current 24-month window some time for us to understand at least what negative consequences will arise. Any entity that can afford a /N block of addresses has the resources to justify that need within a 36 month window, *unless* they don't plan to use the addresses, and simply intend to hoard them. I think ultimately a 36 month window will be an appropriate filter that will keep the market competitive and also reduce speculation. Of course, I'd like to have more data to back up this hypothesis, and I thank Jeff for providing some of his early findings. I agree that it will be difficult to get really good data, and to me, that calls for caution and not sweeping change. I remain opposed to the proposal as written and will oppose proposals that extend the window at this time. I'd be willing to consider 36 months around the December-January timeframe, unless circumstances dictate otherwise at that time. I am going to invoke RS and make this my last response, as I think this thread is beginning to degenerate. thanks, michael From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jun 28 17:17:09 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:17:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FECC47E.8050503@burnttofu.net> References: <4FECC47E.8050503@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <4FECC9D5.5050300@umn.edu> On 6/28/12 15:54 CDT, Michael Sinatra wrote: ... > I remain opposed to the proposal as written and will oppose proposals > that extend the window at this time. I'd be willing to consider 36 > months around the December-January timeframe, unless circumstances > dictate otherwise at that time. So are you suggesting we should consider 36 months for the spring 2013 policy cycle, for possible implementation in summer 2013 or after? Should we even discuss it this policy cycle in your opinion? > I am going to invoke RS and make this my last response, as I think this > thread is beginning to degenerate. Sorry to call you out, but I want to make sure I understand your suggestion. > thanks, > michael -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Thu Jun 28 17:26:11 2012 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:26:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FECC9D5.5050300@umn.edu> References: <4FECC47E.8050503@burnttofu.net> <4FECC9D5.5050300@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FECCBF3.4010100@burnttofu.net> On 06/28/2012 14:17, David Farmer wrote: > > On 6/28/12 15:54 CDT, Michael Sinatra wrote: > ... >> I remain opposed to the proposal as written and will oppose proposals >> that extend the window at this time. I'd be willing to consider 36 >> months around the December-January timeframe, unless circumstances >> dictate otherwise at that time. > > So are you suggesting we should consider 36 months for the spring 2013 > policy cycle, for possible implementation in summer 2013 or after? > Should we even discuss it this policy cycle in your opinion? I think it would be best to do it in the Spring 2013 timeframe for implementation in summer 2013. That seems like a reasonable approach. michael From springer at inlandnet.com Thu Jun 28 17:27:55 2012 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) In-Reply-To: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <20120628140753.R46743@mail.inlandnet.com> I am top posting my response to this kind of over the top diatribe because I tried to go through and respond to all the items that I disagree with but found, in the end, just simpler to say that I disagree with _ALL_ of it except this statement: "Today many legacy address holders do not have contracts with ARIN." I oppose ARIN-prop-176 as written. I like Mr. Sinatra's idea of working toward a 36 month justification period over the next N period. I am in favor of discussing this in Dallas. John Springer On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > It is out of line that a member of the ARIN AC would attack the business model of IPv4 Market Group in this forum. All Jeff Mehlenbacher has done is propose a policy. He does not sit in conflict on the AC where he votes on policies that affect his business. And that is what most AC members do every day. May I make a suggestion that any member of the AC who is remotely in conflict on an issue should recuse themselves from voting or opining on an issue. Consider the case of Owen, whose company would benefit from a faster conversion to IPV6, and whose attitudes on policy suggest he would not like to see IPv4 made more readily available: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try to push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the wrong direction. Owen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we wait another 24 months while companies clamor for IPv4, whose company would that benefit, Owen? Is this an unbiased opinion? Don't you think you should recuse yourself or perhaps step down from the AC for espousing an opinion that benefits your company and does not benefit the community at large? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And Mr Dan Alexander, how can you have an opinion on needing IPv4 addresses, when the ARIN clearly took care of its own in 2010? How can someone from Comcast possibly speak as myself? Are you offering to recuse yourself from Comcast for the 30 minutes you look at ARIN stuff? Did you recuse yourself from ARIN when Comcast was granted the large allocation in 2010? http://www.internetgovernance.org/2010/11/02/arin-grants-comcast-ipv4-mega-allocation/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm opposed to this proposal. Dan Alexander Speaking as myself --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the ARIN AC and Board should consider conflict of interest situations and when it is appropriate and not appropriate to voice an opinion and to vote on issues in front of the Board. And I would not be saying this if the business model of our company was not attacked by a member of the ARIN AC in this forum - totally inappropriate behavior even for a body that has members in constant conflict and is above normal business ethics. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I think it's time the silent minority scolded the AC for this bad behavior. Your support in suggesting that the AC members not vote on issues where they self-benefit, would be a great help to a free market internet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Secondly, I am highly critical of ARIN, the ARIN AC, and the ARIN Board, for not understanding their most important function and purpose with respect to legacy addresses. If you truly want to protect and safeguard the Internet, consider the following: The most important function ARIN can provide with respect to legacy resources is an accurate registry. Failure to do this jeopardizes the financial and social safety of the internet. Current ARIN policies in fact do not ensure an accurate registry and thus do not support a safe Internet. Today many legacy address holders do not have contracts with ARIN. The prudent ones avoid contracts with ARIN because they correctly recognize legacy addresses will ultimately be worth more than non legacy addresses on the open market. A /16 seller typically complies with ARIN policy in selling because it is not worth the relatively small sale proceeds to risk ARIN?s threat of court action, even though there is little likelihood that ARIN would prevail in court. A larger block seller is not afraid of the court costs or of losing in court, but may fear the stigma of publicity. When a legacy IP holder chooses not to comply with ARIN policies, problems begin, because the IP holder also dodges the registry update step. When there is no corresponding registry to reflect these transactions, it opens the door for ISPs to receive other announcement requests without ARIN registrations and then hijacking and misuse becomes easier. Over time, as the ARIN registry has less relevance, the registry becomes meaningless as a tool to determine who has permission to use IPs and then control becomes more ad hoc. It is then that I believe that financial and possibly social misuse of ips will become more common. The ARIN AC should realize that while it may never face a legal challenge for the reasons outlined two paragraphs ago, it does have a social responsibility. IP sales are now common. The right thing to do would be to: 1) cease to attempt to govern resources over which ARIN has no legal right. RIPE and APNIC don't govern legacy resources and the precedent they set should be followed by ARIN. 2) Allow transfers of otherwise dormant resources with no needs justifications so long as the recipient organizations can be classified as an ISP or end user per the NRPM (there I even threw in some ARIN-ese). Otherwise they sit unused and no one benefits. If you don't stop needs justifications on these blocks, too many of these transactions go underground. 3). If you just don't get it, as clearly Owen and others don't want to (apparently speaking only as themselves?), a 60 month justification period is a poor compromise. 24 months won't keep a transaction from going underground. We see that today as legitimate buyers approach us and then disappear after they learn from us that they fail the ARIN prequalification. So while the ARIN?s AC policy making rules are fine in a bubble, the real world is not a bubble. IPs have escalating value, and many IPs will be used by entities not listed in ARIN?s registry. I do not see how ARIN can reclaim a valued resource from a company that is profiting from it, especially when sister RIR?s, RIPE and APNIC, do not make similar claims. As the ARIN registry becomes more inaccurate within the current ARIN policies, then it will continue to become easier and easier for highjacking and misuse. And I have not even spoken to Milton's free market arguments, which by the way, are absolutely correct. The ARIN policies are like wage and price controls gone mad. Sandra Brown _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov Thu Jun 28 18:52:30 2012 From: Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov (Morizot Timothy S) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:52:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) References: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <20120628140753.R46743@mail.inlandnet.com> Message-ID: <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C03EFB73CA@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> I agree with the below. I would support the idea of making free pool allocations (after slow start) equal to the 24 month period for transfers until we reach the last /8 in the free pool. I don't support any upward changes to the needs requirement in the market portion of policy. -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:28 PM To: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) I am top posting my response to this kind of over the top diatribe because I tried to go through and respond to all the items that I disagree with but found, in the end, just simpler to say that I disagree with _ALL_ of it except this statement: "Today many legacy address holders do not have contracts with ARIN." I oppose ARIN-prop-176 as written. I like Mr. Sinatra's idea of working toward a 36 month justification period over the next N period. I am in favor of discussing this in Dallas. John Springer From farmer at umn.edu Thu Jun 28 19:13:04 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:13:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size In-Reply-To: <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> References: <8A5E1973-DD08-436E-8D5F-F79F28197DFA@delong.com> <4FEB4164.60704@arin.net> Message-ID: <4FECE500.4040400@umn.edu> I reached out to someone I know in the ICANN DSSA WG to confirm some of my suspicions, since he pays more attention to that part of ICANN more than I do. So, I believe; 1. The number of allocations we will need to make should be driven much more by the number of CI operators than the number of gTLDs themselves. 2. There will likely be a number of new CI operators, probably somewhere in the range of 10-100, not anywhere near the number of gTLD that could be possible. 3. There will be a lot of additional business for the current CI operators too, so some modest growth from current CI providers is probably reasonable too. 4. This will likely occur over the next 15 to 40 months. So, what ARIN policy conclusions do I draw from those; 1. We should probably reserve a bit more and drop the sunset. 2. Maybe we should clarify that we expect efficient operations even from CI operators, like individual gTLDs and ccTLDs operated by the same CI operator don't justify independent allocations, etc... We need be careful not to hamstring CI operators, but CI operators shouldn't be given a blank check either. What must CI operators provide to justify CI allocations today? So, I support the text as written. And maybe we should consider if our CI policy needs any additional work. Thanks. On 6/27/12 12:22 CDT, ARIN wrote: > ARIN-prop-177 Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size > > Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan > > Proposal Version: 1.0 > > Date: 27 JUNE 2012 > > Proposal type: NEW > > Policy term: PERMANENT > > Policy statement: > > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 from: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /16 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. If at > the end of the policy term there is unused address space remaining in > this pool, ARIN staff is authorized to utilize this space in a manner > consistent with community expectations. > > Change Section 4.4 Paragraph 2 to: > > ARIN will place an equivalent of a /15 of IPv4 address space in a > reserve for Critical Infrastructure, as defined in section 4.4. > > Rationale: > > Additional critical infrastructure is being added to the Internet and > in a number greater than anticipated. The original CI pool was created > to serve new IX and new CI requirements. The pending need is estimated > in the 600 new gTLD range. With a /24 assignment from the existing > boundary and the likelihood of some sharing platforms, assigning a /15 > would seem prudent. I also have removed the limited term. If at a > later date we opt to remove or reduce the pool, it's simpler to do so > without an extra step, namely the term. The process for completing the > additions still has some time to play out, but it is likely we will > have exhausted by the time that the process does fully play out. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 19:26:26 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:26:26 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: On 6/28/12, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > I understand your desire to sit tight and assess statistical evidence > before suggesting a longer justification period is required. My concern The justification period should stay at no more than 24 months, until there is substantial data indicating that changing it is actually beneficial for the community and not harmful. And not just beneficial for speculators or IPv4 resource holders in possession of resources that they do not require, and orgs that want more resources than they can justify. -- -JH From mysidia at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 20:11:58 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:11:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong) In-Reply-To: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC2290@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> References: <20120628103814.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.31a44fea2c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC2290@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> Message-ID: On 6/28/12, Blecker, Christoph wrote: ... > Now you're all smart people, and I'm sure you very clearly realize this. > However, attempting to strong-arm the community by saying that we will > become irrelevant and open the internet to all sorts of problems if we don't > submit to the will of the all-mighty market.. well it's just not the case. Right... ARIN is not an organization to "submit" to the market. The ARIN community /is/ the market. And the product of this market is not "IP addresses" or number resources. It is global interconnectivity over the Internet Protocol. In order for that to be achieved, there are some administrative rules and some technical policies that the community agrees every network has to adhere to, for it to be achieved. The fact that every network must have unique IP address space, is a technical constraint, that has been imposed, through the design of the internet protocol. The fact that every network must be registered is an administrative requirement necessary to satisfy the technical constraints. Anyone choosing to attempt to "side step" policy, and fail to meet their registration requirements, is also choosing to not be globally interconnected. -- -J From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 29 00:53:02 2012 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:53:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201206290453.q5T4r2GQ012866@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 81 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 29 00:53:02 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 13.58% | 11 | 17.46% | 125972 | owen at delong.com 8.64% | 7 | 8.59% | 61991 | jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com 7.41% | 6 | 6.79% | 48976 | jcurran at arin.net 7.41% | 6 | 5.82% | 41965 | bill at herrin.us 6.17% | 5 | 6.57% | 47386 | farmer at umn.edu 6.17% | 5 | 4.57% | 32941 | mysidia at gmail.com 4.94% | 4 | 3.52% | 25415 | hannigan at gmail.com 3.70% | 3 | 3.91% | 28216 | mueller at syr.edu 3.70% | 3 | 3.13% | 22560 | michael+ppml at burnttofu.net 3.70% | 3 | 2.99% | 21597 | info at arin.net 3.70% | 3 | 2.80% | 20186 | dogwallah at gmail.com 2.47% | 2 | 4.01% | 28905 | mike at nationwideinc.com 3.70% | 3 | 2.46% | 17765 | ppml at rs.seastrom.com 2.47% | 2 | 3.28% | 23663 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 2.47% | 2 | 2.45% | 17668 | christoph.blecker at ubc.ca 2.47% | 2 | 2.41% | 17383 | jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net 1.23% | 1 | 2.86% | 20636 | lee at dilkie.com 2.47% | 2 | 1.43% | 10300 | matthew at matthew.at 1.23% | 1 | 2.25% | 16229 | cb.list6 at gmail.com 1.23% | 1 | 2.21% | 15963 | kkargel at polartel.com 1.23% | 1 | 1.79% | 12905 | springer at inlandnet.com 1.23% | 1 | 1.60% | 11559 | sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com 1.23% | 1 | 1.44% | 10425 | daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com 1.23% | 1 | 1.11% | 8024 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.23% | 1 | 1.06% | 7682 | tvest at eyeconomics.com 1.23% | 1 | 1.01% | 7275 | cgrundemann at gmail.com 1.23% | 1 | 0.90% | 6462 | timothy.s.morizot at irs.gov 1.23% | 1 | 0.80% | 5753 | ikiris at gmail.com 1.23% | 1 | 0.79% | 5685 | paul at redbarn.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 81 |100.00% | 721487 | Total From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 29 01:12:30 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:12:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC229F@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> References: <20120628063639.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.8dd2ce8667.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC229F@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5709@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable > IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things [Milton L Mueller] I am wondering what a 24 month forecast looks like. If you find 2 years acceptable and 5 years unacceptable, can you tell me where the line is drawn? Scientifically? Is 3 years ok with you? Two and a half? Four? Why not one year? On what basis are you choosing one or the other? These are not rhetorical questions. I'd really like to know. I frankly don't think you, or anyone on this list can provide a solid, scientifically grounded basis for any one of those time periods. What you all seem to be forgetting is that the needs demonstrations ARIN is accustomed to are based on free-pool allocations. But free-pool allocations don't involve commitments of money. When acquiring durable assets and making outlays, one approaches IP addresses in a different manner, one MUST look at a longer term horizon. Besides, the Soviets and Chinese always relied on five year plans, why does ARIN find them unacceptable? It seems uncharacteristic of it. From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 29 01:40:26 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:40:26 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > The justification period should stay at no more than 24 months, until > there is substantial data indicating that changing it is actually > beneficial for the community and not harmful. "Substantial data!" Thank you. I would love to have a data-driven discussion of this issue. Let's get started. Tell me: what _kind_ of data would indicate to you that a change is warranted? Would it be something like a yield curve for address blocks? Would it involve a discount rate? But...how would either be defined in the absence of active trading across different time periods? As my previous message indicated, I have a very strong suspicion that the 24 month period is arbitrary and has no more or less support than 60 months or 12 months or 6 months. But since you are saying that the data does not support a change, you must have some idea of what kind of data would justify the 24 month period. Please do lay it out for us. Explain how this data generates "substantial" support for the 24 month period. If you can't, why then you'd be obligated to admit that what is now 24 months may just as well be 240 or 2.4 months, wouldn't you? > And not just beneficial for speculators or IPv4 resource holders in > possession of resources that they do not require, and orgs that want > more resources than they can justify. oops. You may not realize it, but you just admitted that there is no such thing as "the community." You've observed that the people involved here fall into a variety of different groupings with different interests - legacy holders, speculators, prospective buyers who "want more resources than they can justify," and others, good guys like you and Hurricane and Comcast. Now please be grown-up and stop calling your faction "the community." It's rude. Kinda like the guy who relegated 4 or 5 participants on this list to the status of non-persons by claiming that "no person" had supported the position they repeatedly expressed. --MM From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Fri Jun 29 02:14:27 2012 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:14:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents Message-ID: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> As I mentioned in my long submission last week, I am one of those ?Legacy? holder of a /24 IP block that I got from the InterNIC on 3/14/94. I got others for my customers around that time and I have their original paperwork as well. I was asked if I would share a copy of my documents to this community for everyone to see and I have scanned them and attached them to this submission. These are the full documents I received with nothing blocked out. The first document is what I received from the InterNIC when I asked to get an IP block and the second document is my actual award letter from them. You will notice that there is no legal agreement or similar language that came with the paperwork. This is why I say that I own this block (even if it is small). There were no restrictions placed on it when I received it. I paid taxes to the federal government in 1994 and thus my taxes went to pay for the block and therefore I believe I paid for it. I know others will disagree but since no other legal documents other than these exist, short of a law that would sort it out, I have made the determination that this block is mine and I am using it today. I hope sharing these original documents help further the debate going on about these legacy IP blocks and I plan on submitting more comments on this subject within another submission. Hope this helps everyone! Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internic Registration.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1686463 bytes Desc: Internic Registration.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IP Block Award.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 339508 bytes Desc: IP Block Award.pdf URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 29 07:52:45 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 04:52:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5709@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120628063639.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.8dd2ce8667.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <5E23819DB192BE43A083C3740C0EF7821FAC229F@S-ITSV-MBX01P.ead.ubc.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5709@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2A1DD5E9-4997-4F3E-82D2-7E73129864F9@delong.com> Speaking only as myself... On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable >> IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things > > [Milton L Mueller] I am wondering what a 24 month forecast looks like. Slightly less fictitious than a 36 month forecast and a whole lot less fictitious than a 60 month forecast. > If you find 2 years acceptable and 5 years unacceptable, can you tell me where the line is drawn? Scientifically? Is 3 years ok with you? Two and a half? Four? Why not one year? On what basis are you choosing one or the other? These are not rhetorical questions. I'd really like to know. I frankly don't think you, or anyone on this list can provide a solid, scientifically grounded basis for any one of those time periods. Since I felt that 2 years wasn't acceptable and wanted to draw the line at 12 months, it's hard to answer the question as you phrased it. Scientifically? This isn't really about science. It's about policy, fairness, perception, and guestimation. I would be OK with 1 year. The community recently set the bar to two years. One thing I am certain of... The greater the dichotomy between the time period set for directed transfers and the time period allowed for free-pool allocations/assignments, the worse we make the situation for the internet overall. Incentivizing organizations to select transfers in preference to free pool allocations/assignments is contrary to the best interests of the internet overall and, IMHO, contrary to the interests of the community. While it is true that my organization (HE) and I work very hard to promote IPv6, we also profit significantly from a prolonged migration period. While I realize it is difficult for someone like Mr. Mueller to understand, maximum profit is not always everyone's goal. Consider that my current job is almost entirely centered around transition. Once transition is actually completed, my current function essentially evaporates and I will need to find new tasks or a new job. In reality, my own personal financial interest is best served by prolonging transition pain as long as possible and maximizing the revenue from the transition process. Nonetheless, I see that as contrary to the good of the community and contrary to the good of the internet. As such, I will continue to work towards policies which do not prolong the transition process and do not increase the pain of that transition. Increasing the dichotomy of the timeframes for justifications on transfers vs. free pool delegations will increase the duration and pain of the transition process. The current 21 month dichotomy is already well beyond what I believe to be good policy. > What you all seem to be forgetting is that the needs demonstrations ARIN is accustomed to are based on free-pool allocations. > But free-pool allocations don't involve commitments of money. When acquiring durable assets and making outlays, one approaches IP addresses in a different manner, one MUST look at a longer term horizon. What is your scientific basis for this? Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 29 08:01:15 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:01:15 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > >> And not just beneficial for speculators or IPv4 resource holders in >> possession of resources that they do not require, and orgs that want >> more resources than they can justify. > > oops. You may not realize it, but you just admitted that there is no such thing as "the community." You've observed that the people involved here fall into a variety of different groupings with different interests - legacy holders, speculators, prospective buyers who "want more resources than they can justify," and others, good guys like you and Hurricane and Comcast. Nope... Any community is usually made up of various groupings with different interests. It's frankly pretty close to how I would go about defining a community. > Now please be grown-up and stop calling your faction "the community." It's rude. Kinda like the guy who relegated 4 or 5 participants on this list to the status of non-persons by claiming that "no person" had supported the position they repeatedly expressed. I'm calling the people who made their opinions clear in the last round leading up to the Vancouver meeting and those that spoke and voted at the Vancouver meeting "the community", not merely my faction. The community supported 24 months. My faction supported no more than 12 months and wanted to see the value set to the same number for free pool and directed transfers regardless of what number was chosen. (3/3, 12/12, or 24/24). The current (3/24) value is the result of a strong preference expressed by the community (the consensus derived from all of the different factions that spoke), not any single faction. I have no problem expressing my own position as my position and/or the position of some faction within the community if that is the case. However, part of my job as an AC member is to assess the overall collective will of the community. In general, you will rarely see me say that the community supports one particular thing or the other unless it is based on policy enacted through the PDP through community discussion and at least a vote of the AC and usually ratification by the board (though sometimes I will speak as such while the policy still awaits board adoption). Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 29 08:08:38 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:08:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: I don't see anywhere in the documents that it states a transfer of ownership occurred. The words assigned, registered, registration, etc. in fact, to me, imply a non-ownership relationship. While I don't have time at this very moment to run through all of the documents referenced, I'm willing to bet that at least one of them contains an indication that addresses are assigned for a particular use and should be returned when that use is no longer valid. Even if it is not in those documents, it was certainly the clear intent of the IANA, IAB, and IETF back then. I will note that "the internet" was defined at that time in terms of the government organization that would sponsor your connection. (according to the documents your provided). Owen On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > As I mentioned in my long submission last week, I am one of those ?Legacy? holder of a /24 IP block that I got from the InterNIC on 3/14/94. I got others for my customers around that time and I have their original paperwork as well. I was asked if I would share a copy of my documents to this community for everyone to see and I have scanned them and attached them to this submission. These are the full documents I received with nothing blocked out. The first document is what I received from the InterNIC when I asked to get an IP block and the second document is my actual award letter from them. You will notice that there is no legal agreement or similar language that came with the paperwork. > > This is why I say that I own this block (even if it is small). There were no restrictions placed on it when I received it. I paid taxes to the federal government in 1994 and thus my taxes went to pay for the block and therefore I believe I paid for it. I know others will disagree but since no other legal documents other than these exist, short of a law that would sort it out, I have made the determination that this block is mine and I am using it today. > > I hope sharing these original documents help further the debate going on about these legacy IP blocks and I plan on submitting more comments on this subject within another submission. Hope this helps everyone! > > Steven L Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099 - Office > 770.392-0076 - Fax > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Fri Jun 29 08:27:54 2012 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:27:54 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <41011D9D-7D15-4C0E-9155-034E666831DA@pch.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I have scanned them and attached them to this submission. These are the full documents I received with nothing blocked out. The first document is what I received from the InterNIC when I asked to get an IP block and the second document is my actual award letter from them. You will notice that there is no legal agreement or similar language that came with the paperwork. This would appear to me to beg the definition of "assigned." Since that's what the letter says. -Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJP7Z9LAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+Hi/UQALZcW21DJo5A6DErPwE0hzFJ vqigKtL7oGnw+6dwY0Y7OnGfkdaENvfk2/Fhd43HvJuOZSQfkTzAnhFnwmJVMJck 5FqMlotkC+ty+whUBtBes7g66xE6lD6Z8axOU9Xb+t8pyOhdojTH7l/sZ4cAjI7B hejt5pD9TKFGpyMFRLPZ7LTy+iYKPkOu6Oyc8yOpGbCCOvy/1CayhWedhzxV2GgM 9K/FAf2+JdD54AXV0ciGju1NnzXIM2E/cgvWoqc89XgqrXdFUPWKolKgeKa7uY3N 9PvmrACGSr+JcGDRmZ3GE5bVryRnnoukHfxGJFrh50RhXRmBc/Ox+i2VtNq+swXr imhgYPc9cEON4WC4h4X4BqAWxu6v0Q9li13kVf6ii7Hol2L6DAidcndq+ai5fhmB pqhyrJ8s9EyjR0fKmCSV8S7qQg/F/Ct8TGYRBXep4wLAIHv38Soc01q8RtLn+I0J 7lAldcyTKIx/AfS+xBSz3J1tJNrgbbZDwWdrzE6/GILcItnOyRu/M+walFsNCb/j IRZUl3CclvBta7FQ6XcWjY5jd4/YCIlB7TcIve49v7jQlw5hocQEQ1WUowiFyy8n +Ee/1NxF2eXdlZbWHtF6SQn2+VGnb8MHTg9QJ+ctTz3t1kzl3Zy3vCq3tEZMAOk+ YY3O1zAD91ZWOXj/zu2k =JqEG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hannigan at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 08:35:25 2012 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:35:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: <41011D9D-7D15-4C0E-9155-034E666831DA@pch.net> References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <41011D9D-7D15-4C0E-9155-034E666831DA@pch.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> I have scanned them and attached them to this submission. ?These are the full documents I received with nothing blocked out. ?The first document is what I received from the InterNIC when I asked to get an IP block and the second document is my actual award letter from them. ?You will notice that there is no legal agreement or similar language that came with the paperwork. > "Assign" has a legal definition that can also have an inverse meaning: "The transfer of a claim, right, interest, or property from one to another" Unfortunately, everything points to the lawyers being the best people to work these issues out which I'm certain will happen eventually. Best, -M< From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 08:38:07 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:38:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: <41011D9D-7D15-4C0E-9155-034E666831DA@pch.net> References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <41011D9D-7D15-4C0E-9155-034E666831DA@pch.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> I have scanned them and attached them to this submission. ?These are the full documents I received with nothing blocked out. ?The first document is what I received from the InterNIC when I asked to get an IP block and the second document is my actual award letter from them. ?You will notice that there is no legal agreement or similar language that came with the paperwork. > > This would appear to me to beg the definition of "assigned." ?Since that's what the letter says. Assigned to ECLIPSENET, not to you personally. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 29 08:53:52 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:53:52 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <8FC98F64-1303-461F-96E6-7F9230B19DBE@arin.net> On Jun 29, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote: I hope sharing these original documents help further the debate going on about these legacy IP blocks and I plan on submitting more comments on this subject within another submission. Hope this helps everyone! Steve - Indeed - you requested and were assigned a Class C network number. Hopefully, this issuance of the address block to your organization in the Internet Registry has helped you in the use of TCP/IP protocols. At the time you were issued it, I do not believe that there was any way to transfer the registration, but now as a result of community-developed policy in the region, you may also transfer the block to another party with appropriate need. See for more information. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Fri Jun 29 09:00:25 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:00:25 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120629060025.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.09f2067911.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Hello Tom, Thank you for weighing in on this proposal. Please permit me to preface my statistical suggestions with a couple of points: 1. I neither suggested it was valid to wait for statistical evidence before considering the merit of extending the window for justification nor did I suggest the current statistics available through ARIN were sufficient to evaluate the appropriateness of the current justification window. Two other AC Members suggested that would be a sensible approach. I do not believe published statistical tables currently exists to support such an assessment and it's perhaps a deferral strategy on behalf of those individuals opposed to the policy proposal. 2. My proposal is founded on the very simple principle: reallocating an organization's unused IPv4 blocks to a legitimate ISP or End User via an ARIN-approved 8.3 Specified Transfer is a good thing for the community and should be made as painless as possible. 60 months justification promotes a much, much higher degree of certainty to enter into an 8.3 transfer and thus all parties (sellers and buyers) will be more willing to participate. Unused IPv4 blocks are revitalized, the registry is more accurate, etc. Having said that Tom, I believe statistics that might lead the community to a better understanding of what has transpired the last 17 months under 8.3 are readily available. They simply are not published by ARIN. What we know with certainty is how many 8.3 transfers have been requested, and how many have been completed. We do not understand the one to one relationship of request and approval/rejection because it's a rolling monthly total. I believe that before we attempt to use any statistics we should understand the data elements that are captured, the accuracy, and the utility to evaluate such things as whether the 24 month justification window is appropriate. I would suggest the following data elements (not a comprehensive list) are captured but currently not published...if Mutual NDA's prohibit said, it's really a matter of modifying said Mutual NDA to ensure that generic data may be collected and published: 1. Date of Request for 8.3 Specified Transfer 2. Status of Transferring Block (Legacy, LRSA, RSA) 3. Size of Block (/16, /17, etc.) 4. Source SIC Code 5. Recipient NRPM Definition: ISP or End User 6. Recipient Customer Status with ARIN: Customer or Non-Customer 7. If ARIN Customer, date and size of last allocation from the free pool 8. Current percent utilization of existing blocks 9. Number of Justification re-submissions for transfer 10. Approval or Rejection decision 11. Approval or Rejection rationale (codes 1-?) 11. Date of Approval or Rejection 12. Facilitator Involvement (yes/no) 13. Price paid (US$) I'm surely missing a half dozen other data elements that are captured during an 8.3 but my point is, there is considerable data...will it support the notion that 24 months is the correct window? Very loosely at best, but it would assist all interested parties in better understanding the 8.3 transfer market. Publishing price however is going to be an entirely separate debate isn't it? I quietly muse at all that would suggest 60 months will permit speculation or hoarding. Really? What are you speculating on in the absence of known prices and continuous updates? If however, prices are published, now you have the basis to speculate as is the case in every open market system (real estate, stock market, etc.). As for other well-established markets, I have thoughts but would suggest there are individuals who participate on the PPML better qualified to suggest objective models for assessment purposes. Jeff Mehlenbacher -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers From: Tom Vest Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 11:59 am To: Cc: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com, arin-ppml at arin.net Hi Jeff, Out of curiosity, could you suggest ( at min.) one set of data that would be sufficient, in your view, to determine the appropriateness of a(ny) IP number resource transfer market, under current or any other imaginable policy criteria? How would you define "appropriateness" and what sort of data would you need to make such a judgment? If this question seems too abstract, perhaps you could point us to some other, well-established market that demonstrably satisfies its own "appropriateness" criteria based on "objective" data that is, if not publicly available, at least available to some disinterested "appropriateness evaluators"? Thanks, Tom Vest On Jun 28, 2012, at 6:25 AM, wrote: > I have a real concern that the body of data available for assessment is neither comprehensive > nor focused on dictating success or failure of the current 24 month > justification period. I would be interested in understanding what data > will be monitored to determine the appropriateness of current policy for > 8.3s. > > Thanks! > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > > Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:11:24 +0000 > From: "Alexander, Daniel" > To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Jeff, > > One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3 > transfers > claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to use. By > stretching the period to five years, we start trading one underutilized > resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to the claimed > benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who objected to these > transactions. > > No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand > the > timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before having any > data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes that have been > made. While I don't claim to know what the magic number should be, I > think > this change would be irresponsible at this time, based only on the > speculations made on this mailing list. > > I'm opposed to this proposal. > > Dan Alexander > Speaking as myself > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Fri Jun 29 09:10:24 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:10:24 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120629061024.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.221d973414.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Christoph, Fear not, we are not dancing around the issue by proposing 60 months. On February 16th 2012, I submitted a policy proposal for the elimination of needs-based assessment on 8.3 specified transfers. The policy proposal read as follows: 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and requires that an Officer Attestation be provided confirming the transferred number resources will be applied to enable current or planned business models. The proposal was rejected by a vote of 10-3 by the AC. I was advised that changing the 24 months to an outright elimination was too radical too soon. Jeff Mehlenbacher -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers From: "Blecker, Christoph" Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 2:18 pm To: "'jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com'" Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com > Sent: June-28-12 6:37 AM > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to > 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > > Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business > model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out > (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another > 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other > statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't > terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding > your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 > justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of > "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position > while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 > followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. > > Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with > prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those > that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free > allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the > justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified > Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused > IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers > prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only > with the people and organizations who base their business models on > evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer > policy proposals on that basis. > > Jeff Mehlenbacher Hi Jeff, I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things like IPv6 uptake and such, the major concern is that networks can't reasonably plan what things will look like 5 years from now. Unless this is the case, perhaps it would be better not to dance around the issue and propose removing the needs-based requirement from 8.3 transfers all together. Without more details on what a reasonable 60-month IPv4 usage forecast looks like, I cannot support the proposal as written. Best regards, -- Christoph Blecker The University of British Columbia From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 29 09:20:19 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:20:19 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120629061024.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.221d973414.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120629061024.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.221d973414.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <2A900235-6A48-4CD1-A618-710857ED3AED@delong.com> Jeff leaves out that the proposal was also rejected by tremendous opposition on PPML and in the show of hands at the PPM prior to the AC's rejection. I don't know who advised him it was "too radical too soon". I would say that elimination of needs basis is simply not something the community wants to embrace. Given history, I expect that to be unlikely to change unless and until the makeup of the community is sufficiently tilted away from those interested in managing and operating networks and more towards those looking to extract value from the circulation of addresses and other derivatives. Owen On Jun 29, 2012, at 6:10 AM, wrote: > Christoph, > > Fear not, we are not dancing around the issue by proposing 60 months. > On February 16th 2012, I submitted a policy proposal for the elimination > of needs-based assessment on 8.3 specified transfers. The policy > proposal read as follows: > > 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within > the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource > holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified > organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be > received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and > requires that an Officer Attestation be provided confirming the > transferred number resources will be applied to enable current or > planned business models. > > The proposal was rejected by a vote of 10-3 by the AC. I was advised > that changing the 24 months to an outright elimination was too radical > too soon. > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > From: "Blecker, Christoph" > Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 2:18 pm > To: "'jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com'" > > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com >> Sent: June-28-12 6:37 AM >> To: Owen DeLong >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to >> 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >> >> Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business >> model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out >> (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another >> 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other >> statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't >> terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding >> your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 >> justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of >> "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position >> while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 >> followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. >> >> Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with >> prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those >> that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free >> allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the >> justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified >> Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused >> IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers >> prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only >> with the people and organizations who base their business models on >> evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer >> policy proposals on that basis. >> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher > > Hi Jeff, > I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable > IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things > like IPv6 uptake and such, the major concern is that networks can't > reasonably plan what things will look like 5 years from now. Unless this > is the case, perhaps it would be better not to dance around the issue > and propose removing the needs-based requirement from 8.3 transfers all > together. > > Without more details on what a reasonable 60-month IPv4 usage forecast > looks like, I cannot support the proposal as written. > > Best regards, > > -- > Christoph Blecker > The University of British Columbia > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Fri Jun 29 10:06:01 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:06:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120629070601.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.a3d2523718.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> I also left out the part about the rational, open-minded postings by many members of the community suggesting it was worth considering...particularly where legacy resources not under contract are concerned. The opposition to the proposal was too often centered around the belief that speculating / hoarding / stock-piling and other fear-monger issues would be the result. Again, until such time as the market matures and statistical insight is available (particularly price per IP), we need not worry about speculation and capricious consumption. It's a sucker bet. I don't think outright elimination of needs assessment on specified transfers should be swept under the rug permanently Owen. Things change. It wasn't so long ago that the APNIC community--one that is considerably larger and more complex than ARIN--had no needs-based justification (pre-October 2011). Needs-based justification was (re)introduced by APNIC only to enable a compatible needs-based policy with ARIN for inter-RIR transfer policy implementation. Jeff Mehlenbacher -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers From: Owen DeLong Date: Fri, June 29, 2012 9:20 am To: Cc: "Blecker, Christoph" , "arin-ppml at arin.net" Jeff leaves out that the proposal was also rejected by tremendous opposition on PPML and in the show of hands at the PPM prior to the AC's rejection. I don't know who advised him it was "too radical too soon". I would say that elimination of needs basis is simply not something the community wants to embrace. Given history, I expect that to be unlikely to change unless and until the makeup of the community is sufficiently tilted away from those interested in managing and operating networks and more towards those looking to extract value from the circulation of addresses and other derivatives. Owen On Jun 29, 2012, at 6:10 AM, wrote: > Christoph, > > Fear not, we are not dancing around the issue by proposing 60 months. > On February 16th 2012, I submitted a policy proposal for the elimination > of needs-based assessment on 8.3 specified transfers. The policy > proposal read as follows: > > 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients > In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within > the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource > holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified > organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be > received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and > requires that an Officer Attestation be provided confirming the > transferred number resources will be applied to enable current or > planned business models. > > The proposal was rejected by a vote of 10-3 by the AC. I was advised > that changing the 24 months to an outright elimination was too radical > too soon. > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > From: "Blecker, Christoph" > Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 2:18 pm > To: "'jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com'" > > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >> Behalf Of jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com >> Sent: June-28-12 6:37 AM >> To: Owen DeLong >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to >> 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >> >> Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business >> model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out >> (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another >> 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other >> statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't >> terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding >> your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 >> justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of >> "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position >> while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 >> followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. >> >> Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with >> prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those >> that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free >> allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the >> justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified >> Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused >> IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers >> prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only >> with the people and organizations who base their business models on >> evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer >> policy proposals on that basis. >> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher > > Hi Jeff, > I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable > IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things > like IPv6 uptake and such, the major concern is that networks can't > reasonably plan what things will look like 5 years from now. Unless this > is the case, perhaps it would be better not to dance around the issue > and propose removing the needs-based requirement from 8.3 transfers all > together. > > Without more details on what a reasonable 60-month IPv4 usage forecast > looks like, I cannot support the proposal as written. > > Best regards, > > -- > Christoph Blecker > The University of British Columbia > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 29 10:21:37 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:21:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > I hope sharing these original documents help further the debate going on > about these legacy IP blocks and I plan on submitting more comments on this > subject within another submission.? Hope this helps everyone! Incidentally, copies of that template and others shortly before and after are available here: http://bill.herrin.us/network/templates/ Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 29 10:38:39 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:38:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120629070601.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.a3d2523718.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120629070601.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.a3d2523718.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <346F4A9F-8CCB-474F-9C38-8AF18FB7E848@delong.com> On Jun 29, 2012, at 7:06 AM, wrote: > I also left out the part about the rational, open-minded postings by > many members of the community suggesting it was worth > considering...particularly where legacy resources not under contract are > concerned. The opposition to the proposal was too often centered around > the belief that speculating / hoarding / stock-piling and other > fear-monger issues would be the result. Again, until such time as the > market matures and statistical insight is available (particularly price > per IP), we need not worry about speculation and capricious consumption. > It's a sucker bet. > Fear monger issues like the claim that people will disregard the registry system if we don't buckle under and remove policy preserving needs basis? Allowing the market to devolve into speculation and hoarding is the sucker bet in my opinion. > I don't think outright elimination of needs assessment on specified > transfers should be swept under the rug permanently Owen. Things > change. It wasn't so long ago that the APNIC community--one that is > considerably larger and more complex than ARIN--had no needs-based > justification (pre-October 2011). Needs-based justification was > (re)introduced by APNIC only to enable a compatible needs-based policy > with ARIN for inter-RIR transfer policy implementation. > Nobody is sweeping it under the rug. We hauled it out into the light and disinfected it in the court of public opinion. Actually, I don't know to what extent you participated in or watched the debate in the APNIC community, but, I do not agree with your characterization. Yes, ARIN policy was a factor in the debate, but, to claim it was the ONLY factor supporting adding needs basis to APNIC transfer policy is specious. Further, APNIC retained needs basis for all allocations/assignments from the free pool. It was only ever removed for transfers, so claiming that APNIC had no needs-based justification is also false. They had no needs-based justification for transfers. Owen > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > From: Owen DeLong > Date: Fri, June 29, 2012 9:20 am > To: > Cc: "Blecker, Christoph" , > "arin-ppml at arin.net" > > Jeff leaves out that the proposal was also rejected by tremendous > opposition > on PPML and in the show of hands at the PPM prior to the AC's rejection. > > I don't know who advised him it was "too radical too soon". I would say > that > elimination of needs basis is simply not something the community wants > to > embrace. Given history, I expect that to be unlikely to change unless > and > until the makeup of the community is sufficiently tilted away from those > interested > in managing and operating networks and more towards those looking to > extract value from the circulation of addresses and other derivatives. > > Owen > > On Jun 29, 2012, at 6:10 AM, > wrote: > >> Christoph, >> >> Fear not, we are not dancing around the issue by proposing 60 months. >> On February 16th 2012, I submitted a policy proposal for the elimination >> of needs-based assessment on 8.3 specified transfers. The policy >> proposal read as follows: >> >> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients >> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within >> the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource >> holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified >> organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be >> received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and >> requires that an Officer Attestation be provided confirming the >> transferred number resources will be applied to enable current or >> planned business models. >> >> The proposal was rejected by a vote of 10-3 by the AC. I was advised >> that changing the 24 months to an outright elimination was too radical >> too soon. >> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based >> Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >> From: "Blecker, Christoph" >> Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 2:18 pm >> To: "'jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com'" >> >> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>> Behalf Of jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com >>> Sent: June-28-12 6:37 AM >>> To: Owen DeLong >>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to >>> 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >>> >>> Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business >>> model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out >>> (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another >>> 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other >>> statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't >>> terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding >>> your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 >>> justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of >>> "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position >>> while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 >>> followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. >>> >>> Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with >>> prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those >>> that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free >>> allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the >>> justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified >>> Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused >>> IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers >>> prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only >>> with the people and organizations who base their business models on >>> evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer >>> policy proposals on that basis. >>> >>> Jeff Mehlenbacher >> >> Hi Jeff, >> I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable >> IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things >> like IPv6 uptake and such, the major concern is that networks can't >> reasonably plan what things will look like 5 years from now. Unless this >> is the case, perhaps it would be better not to dance around the issue >> and propose removing the needs-based requirement from 8.3 transfers all >> together. >> >> Without more details on what a reasonable 60-month IPv4 usage forecast >> looks like, I cannot support the proposal as written. >> >> Best regards, >> >> -- >> Christoph Blecker >> The University of British Columbia >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 29 10:34:54 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:34:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: <8FC98F64-1303-461F-96E6-7F9230B19DBE@arin.net> References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <8FC98F64-1303-461F-96E6-7F9230B19DBE@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Curran wrote: > ? ?At the time you were issued it, I do not believe that there was > any way?to?transfer the registration, Hi John, My recollection was that to transfer a registration, one submitted a new copy of the template. Part 3 (network name) was kept identical to the name in the assignment letter and the rest of the information edited to match the new facts of the holding. In fact, in a new registration it was even possible to request a *specific* IP address block. I did so in 1996 and received the requested block. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 29 10:51:58 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:51:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <2A900235-6A48-4CD1-A618-710857ED3AED@delong.com> References: <20120629061024.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.221d973414.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <2A900235-6A48-4CD1-A618-710857ED3AED@delong.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Jeff leaves out that the proposal was also rejected by tremendous opposition > on PPML and in the show of hands at the PPM prior to the AC's rejection. > > I don't know who advised him it was "too radical too soon". That's a reasonable paraphrase of my opinion but I'm not on the AC. :) On the other hand, my guess is that 60 months is plain dumb. When the time comes to loosen the restrictions we should loosen the restrictions directly... not encourage people to lie to us about them. Which is what an officer attested 60 month projection in the current environment boils down to: a bald faced lie. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 29 10:53:07 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:53:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Statistics for NRPM 8.3 Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120629060025.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.09f2067911.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120629060025.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.09f2067911.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <3AB70F82-7046-452F-98AB-C6077A92682D@corp.arin.net> On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:00 PM, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > What we know with certainty is how many 8.3 transfers have been > requested, and how many have been completed. We do not understand the > one to one relationship of request and approval/rejection because it's a > rolling monthly total. I believe that before we attempt to use any > statistics we should understand the data elements that are captured, the > accuracy, and the utility to evaluate such things as whether the 24 > month justification window is appropriate. I would suggest the > following data elements (not a comprehensive list) are captured but > currently not published...if Mutual NDA's prohibit said, it's really a > matter of modifying said Mutual NDA to ensure that generic data may be > collected and published: > ... Jeff - We're happy to collect any metrics that the community can agree upon, and would encourage discussion of the appropriate set. Collecting this information for all requests may raise concern by some parties, and so it also worth considering which would only be reported on only in the aggregate and whether some of these should be optional, i.e. left to the discretion of the recipient whether to be provided. Thanks for raising this important topic! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com Fri Jun 29 11:06:43 2012 From: jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com (jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:06:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers Message-ID: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> As I previously told you Owen, we are asked once per week by a prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated without enduring the rigors of justification. When we identify the risks for both buyers and sellers alike, they go quiet. You wonder where they go don't you? I have a pretty good idea they simply seek alternative means and providers. So it's not fear mongering to suggest people will disregard the registry. Some do. I cannot quantify it because we neither endorse nor monitor. Correct, as we are debating transfers you are correct to point out free allocations in APNIC are needs-based. Jeff Mehlenbacher -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers From: Owen DeLong Date: Fri, June 29, 2012 10:38 am To: Cc: "Blecker, Christoph" , "arin-ppml at arin.net" On Jun 29, 2012, at 7:06 AM, wrote: > I also left out the part about the rational, open-minded postings by > many members of the community suggesting it was worth > considering...particularly where legacy resources not under contract are > concerned. The opposition to the proposal was too often centered around > the belief that speculating / hoarding / stock-piling and other > fear-monger issues would be the result. Again, until such time as the > market matures and statistical insight is available (particularly price > per IP), we need not worry about speculation and capricious consumption. > It's a sucker bet. > Fear monger issues like the claim that people will disregard the registry system if we don't buckle under and remove policy preserving needs basis? Allowing the market to devolve into speculation and hoarding is the sucker bet in my opinion. > I don't think outright elimination of needs assessment on specified > transfers should be swept under the rug permanently Owen. Things > change. It wasn't so long ago that the APNIC community--one that is > considerably larger and more complex than ARIN--had no needs-based > justification (pre-October 2011). Needs-based justification was > (re)introduced by APNIC only to enable a compatible needs-based policy > with ARIN for inter-RIR transfer policy implementation. > Nobody is sweeping it under the rug. We hauled it out into the light and disinfected it in the court of public opinion. Actually, I don't know to what extent you participated in or watched the debate in the APNIC community, but, I do not agree with your characterization. Yes, ARIN policy was a factor in the debate, but, to claim it was the ONLY factor supporting adding needs basis to APNIC transfer policy is specious. Further, APNIC retained needs basis for all allocations/assignments from the free pool. It was only ever removed for transfers, so claiming that APNIC had no needs-based justification is also false. They had no needs-based justification for transfers. Owen > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > From: Owen DeLong > Date: Fri, June 29, 2012 9:20 am > To: > Cc: "Blecker, Christoph" , > "arin-ppml at arin.net" > > Jeff leaves out that the proposal was also rejected by tremendous > opposition > on PPML and in the show of hands at the PPM prior to the AC's rejection. > > I don't know who advised him it was "too radical too soon". I would say > that > elimination of needs basis is simply not something the community wants > to > embrace. Given history, I expect that to be unlikely to change unless > and > until the makeup of the community is sufficiently tilted away from those > interested > in managing and operating networks and more towards those looking to > extract value from the circulation of addresses and other derivatives. > > Owen > > On Jun 29, 2012, at 6:10 AM, > wrote: > >> Christoph, >> >> Fear not, we are not dancing around the issue by proposing 60 months. >> On February 16th 2012, I submitted a policy proposal for the elimination >> of needs-based assessment on 8.3 specified transfers. The policy >> proposal read as follows: >> >> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients >> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within >> the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource >> holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified >> organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be >> received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and >> requires that an Officer Attestation be provided confirming the >> transferred number resources will be applied to enable current or >> planned business models. >> >> The proposal was rejected by a vote of 10-3 by the AC. I was advised >> that changing the 24 months to an outright elimination was too radical >> too soon. >> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based >> Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >> From: "Blecker, Christoph" >> Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 2:18 pm >> To: "'jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com'" >> >> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>> Behalf Of jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com >>> Sent: June-28-12 6:37 AM >>> To: Owen DeLong >>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to >>> 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >>> >>> Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business >>> model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out >>> (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another >>> 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other >>> statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't >>> terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding >>> your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 >>> justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of >>> "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position >>> while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 >>> followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. >>> >>> Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with >>> prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those >>> that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free >>> allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the >>> justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified >>> Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused >>> IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers >>> prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only >>> with the people and organizations who base their business models on >>> evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer >>> policy proposals on that basis. >>> >>> Jeff Mehlenbacher >> >> Hi Jeff, >> I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable >> IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things >> like IPv6 uptake and such, the major concern is that networks can't >> reasonably plan what things will look like 5 years from now. Unless this >> is the case, perhaps it would be better not to dance around the issue >> and propose removing the needs-based requirement from 8.3 transfers all >> together. >> >> Without more details on what a reasonable 60-month IPv4 usage forecast >> looks like, I cannot support the proposal as written. >> >> Best regards, >> >> -- >> Christoph Blecker >> The University of British Columbia >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 29 11:09:30 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:09:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <8FC98F64-1303-461F-96E6-7F9230B19DBE@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 29, 2012, at 4:34 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Curran wrote: >> At the time you were issued it, I do not believe that there was >> any way to transfer the registration, > > Hi John, > > My recollection was that to transfer a registration, one submitted a > new copy of the template. Part 3 (network name) was kept identical to > the name in the assignment letter and the rest of the information > edited to match the new facts of the holding. Bill - That would be very good information to confirm one way or another (I was involved in helping many organizations make IP network requests in that period and the ability to transfer never came up, but that does not mean such transfers were not done by others) Allowing transfers via an updated request form (including the documentation of need over 1/2/5 years) does seem reasonable if the recipient would qualify to be issued the same sized block. Do you know any details regarding processing of such requests? FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 29 11:29:03 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:29:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <8FC98F64-1303-461F-96E6-7F9230B19DBE@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:09 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 29, 2012, at 4:34 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> ? ?At the time you were issued it, I do not believe that there was >>> any way to transfer the registration, >> >> My recollection was that to transfer a registration, one submitted a >> new copy of the template. Part 3 (network name) was kept identical to >> the name in the assignment letter and the rest of the information >> edited to match the new facts of the holding. > > ?That would be very good information to confirm one way or another > ?(I was involved in helping many organizations make IP network > ?requests in that period and the ability to transfer never came > ?up, but that does not mean such transfers were not done by others) Hi John, In 1995 my network changed from "infoglut" to "Why? InterNetworking." I submitted a partial form 09/94 with that change and a change of postal address (net name plus questions 2a and 4a). No address justification was offered. The response from Internic was, "Greetings- Updates for the network(s) shown below have been completed. The new information will be visible via WHOIS by tomorrow." Under current terminology we'd call that a transfer. At the time it was just another records update. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 29 11:45:36 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:45:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <8FC98F64-1303-461F-96E6-7F9230B19DBE@arin.net> Message-ID: <5ED8AC6A-0EA8-452A-AEF8-7940E27DBFCE@arin.net> On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:29 PM, William Herrin wrote: > In 1995 my network changed from "infoglut" to "Why? InterNetworking." > I submitted a partial form 09/94 with that change and a change of > postal address (net name plus questions 2a and 4a). No address > justification was offered. > > The response from Internic was, "Greetings- Updates for the network(s) > shown below have been completed. The new information will be visible > via WHOIS by tomorrow." > > Under current terminology we'd call that a transfer. At the time it > was just another records update. Bill - Understood, although we're already aware of several name changes in network blocks. If you have any circumstances of a transfer of a network block to a different organization, that would be more relevant to the discussion. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From tvest at eyeconomics.com Fri Jun 29 15:19:52 2012 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:19:52 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120629060025.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.09f2067911.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120629060025.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.09f2067911.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <8294CD42-4FD5-464E-9D8E-81647BB7AF21@eyeconomics.com> Hi Jeff, Thanks for the response. Reactions inline... On Jun 29, 2012, at 9:00 AM, wrote: > Hello Tom, > > Thank you for weighing in on this proposal. Please permit me to preface > my statistical suggestions with a couple of points: > > 1. I neither suggested it was valid to wait for statistical evidence > before considering the merit of extending the window for justification > nor did I suggest the current statistics available through ARIN were > sufficient to evaluate the appropriateness of the current justification > window. Two other AC Members suggested that would be a sensible > approach. I do not believe published statistical tables currently > exists to support such an assessment and it's perhaps a deferral > strategy on behalf of those individuals opposed to the policy proposal. Although it reads that way, I'll assume that you're *not* implying here that proposed policies could or should be evaluated based on their supporters' and/or detractors' "true" motivations (?). Please correct me if I'm mistaken. However, if that was not the implication, then your criticism of a proposed policy evaluation mechanism solely because it results in "deferral" -- i.e., taking (more) time (than some alternative) -- must be based on some underlying theory of policy process "timeliness." Could you share the details of that theory with us? At what point does the time required to evaluate specific proposal (x) go from "reasonable" to unreasonable"? Does the time vary depending on the specifics of (x), and if so what factors justify more vs. less evaluation time? > 2. My proposal is founded on the very simple principle: reallocating an > organization's unused IPv4 blocks to a legitimate ISP or End User via an > ARIN-approved 8.3 Specified Transfer is a good thing for the community > and should be made as painless as possible. While I can understand why your self-declared commercial interests might lead you to assert this, the assertion itself is literally indefensible unless one believes that (a) the act of making such transfers "as painless as possible" does not and *cannot* give rise to any net adverse collateral effects, perverse incentives, unintended consequences, etc. under any circumstances (i.e., relative to not acting to absolutely reduce all transfer-related pain), or alternately that (b) such "externalities" cannot or should not be have any bearing on the decision(s) to accept or reject specific transfer policy-related proposals. Do you subscribe to either or both of those beliefs? > 60 months justification > promotes a much, much higher degree of certainty to enter into an 8.3 > transfer and thus all parties (sellers and buyers) will be more willing > to participate. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be using the word "certainty" as a substitute for "private incentive." Granted, under certain circumstances, some kinds of "certainty" can incentivize private actors to participate in a market, but it's not clear to me how a 60-month justification period would contribute to net *market* certainty -- i.e., the kind of certainty that is widely advocated as a goal for public policy. One the first day after a 60-month justification period were approved, aspiring IPv4 buyers (and, to a lesser degree, aspiring IPv4 dealers) might have greater private "certainty" that a one-time purchase of IPv4 *on that day* would serve their own private interests -- i.e., they would have a greater private incentive to participate in the market. However, that one-time gain in private "certainty" would be purchased at the expense of their own (and everyone else's) *diminished* certainty that a nonzero supply of transferable IPv4 would exist every day thereafter. How is overall "certainty" improved in any way that might merit policy intervention? > Unused IPv4 blocks are revitalized, If auditing IPv4 utilization was a costless, non-disruptive, perfectly accurate, and universally embraced practice, this would unquestionably be true. In the world we actually live in, the "IPv4 revitalization" effects of the proposed change would likely be much more ambiguous. > the registry is more accurate, etc. Practically speaking, this would be the expected result ONLY to the extent that the current registry is populated with many entries consisting of (1) institutions that do not exist and (2) address resources that are completely idle. If the current registry entries for institutions that have resources in production are 100% accurate today, then bringing formerly idled resources would grow the registry, but have no effect on registry accuracy. Conversely, if current registry entries for institutions that have resources in production are somewhat less than 100% accurate today, then why would you expect incumbent operators and/or new entrants to voluntarily subject their newly purchased IPv4 to a higher accuracy standard than they currently maintain? Perhaps you are assuming that registry accuracy will be improved by (someone) first identifying resources that are currently registered under org (x) but actually used by org (y), and then either compelling those unauthorized users to correct the registry record, or alternately forcing them to cease using the resources so that they can be conveyed to someone else who is both able to put the recovered resources to productive use (as defined by policy) and also willing to establish and maintain a more accurate registry entry linking themselves to the resources. If this is your assumption, and further you believe that the "someone" who will do that private detective/bounty hunter job is the newly emerging commercial IPv4 brokerages, then I would have *lots* of questions for you that I'll defer pending your response. For now, I'll just point out that no matter who that hypothetical "someone" might be, the same questions asked above would apply, i.e., how would the 60-month justification period that you advocate change circumstances ( e.g., imbue facilitators with greater investigative/enforcement powers *and* commercial incentives that actually favor a higher level of accuracy over higher profits) in any way that might lead to improved registry accuracy? > Having said that Tom, I believe statistics that might lead the community > to a better understanding of what has transpired the last 17 months > under 8.3 are readily available. They simply are not published by ARIN. > What we know with certainty is how many 8.3 transfers have been > requested, and how many have been completed. We do not understand the > one to one relationship of request and approval/rejection because it's a > rolling monthly total. I believe that before we attempt to use any > statistics we should understand the data elements that are captured, the > accuracy, and the utility to evaluate such things as whether the 24 > month justification window is appropriate. I would suggest the > following data elements (not a comprehensive list) are captured but > currently not published...if Mutual NDA's prohibit said, it's really a > matter of modifying said Mutual NDA to ensure that generic data may be > collected and published: > > 1. Date of Request for 8.3 Specified Transfer > 2. Status of Transferring Block (Legacy, LRSA, RSA) > 3. Size of Block (/16, /17, etc.) > 4. Source SIC Code > 5. Recipient NRPM Definition: ISP or End User > 6. Recipient Customer Status with ARIN: Customer or Non-Customer > 7. If ARIN Customer, date and size of last allocation from the free > pool > 8. Current percent utilization of existing blocks > 9. Number of Justification re-submissions for transfer > 10. Approval or Rejection decision > 11. Approval or Rejection rationale (codes 1-?) > 11. Date of Approval or Rejection > 12. Facilitator Involvement (yes/no) > 13. Price paid (US$) I agree that more information is almost always better than less -- but I suspect that you've already overshot the level of information that would be deemed acceptable to most potential market participants by a very wide margin. Moreover, even this is not enough. For example, why exclude the identity of the aspiring buyer and the aspiring seller? With the possible exception of smallish entities that are both privately held AND have zero customers (i.e., that have no PA allocations and at most a very small number of ASNs), every institution that has ever received resources from ARIN or one of the other RIRs has critically important "external" stakeholders -- including either or both current and potential future stock buyers/holders/shorters, and (imo, more important still), a potentially large number of downstream network service "customers" -- i.e., entities whose own IPv4 addressing needs often provided much of the original "justification" that enabled the aspiring IPv4 buyer/seller to obtain whatever resources are already in their possession. Surely the network customers whose future service expectations, and the investors whose future earnings expectations may be substantially impacted by a network service provider's evolving IP addressing strategy also have a right to know? Promoting a larger/more active IPv4 market while simultaneously shielding the identities of aspiring IPv4 market participants would dramatically reduce whatever level of market "certainty" that those important stakeholders currently enjoy -- how can that be justified? Also, assuming that "facilitators" are free to differentiate themselves by adopting different commercial strategies that could in turn materially affect the outcome and details of the transactions that they broker in different ways, why should their identities be exempted from public disclosure? > I'm surely missing a half dozen other data elements that are captured > during an 8.3 but my point is, there is considerable data...will it > support the notion that 24 months is the correct window? Very loosely > at best, but it would assist all interested parties in better > understanding the 8.3 transfer market. Publishing price however is > going to be an entirely separate debate isn't it? I quietly muse at all > that would suggest 60 months will permit speculation or hoarding. > Really? What are you speculating on in the absence of known prices and > continuous updates? If however, prices are published, now you have the > basis to speculate as is the case in every open market system (real > estate, stock market, etc.). > > As for other well-established markets, I have thoughts but would suggest > there are individuals who participate on the PPML better qualified to > suggest objective models for assessment purposes. In that case I guess we'll have to wait for someone who is both (a) knowledgeable of a potentially illuminating present-day exemplar market and (b) actually believes that it would be beneficial for IPv4 to be traded more like a "normal" commodity to speak up. For my own part, I am quite familiar with some other markets that are, IMO, quite relevant and illuminating to the problems under discussion, but at present those markets provide only a wealth of examples of what not to do (i.e., if we value stable markets, a stable, self-governing industry, continued/future growth and prosperity, etc.), and what to expect if we proceed anyway. Regards, TV > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > From: Tom Vest > Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 11:59 am > To: > > Cc: Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com, arin-ppml at arin.net > > Hi Jeff, > > Out of curiosity, could you suggest ( at min.) one set of data that > would be sufficient, in your view, to determine the appropriateness of > a(ny) IP number resource transfer market, under current or any other > imaginable policy criteria? How would you define "appropriateness" and > what sort of data would you need to make such a judgment? > > If this question seems too abstract, perhaps you could point us to some > other, well-established market that demonstrably satisfies its own > "appropriateness" criteria based on "objective" data that is, if not > publicly available, at least available to some disinterested > "appropriateness evaluators"? > > Thanks, > > Tom Vest > > On Jun 28, 2012, at 6:25 AM, > wrote: > >> I have a real concern that the body of data available for assessment is neither comprehensive >> nor focused on dictating success or failure of the current 24 month >> justification period. I would be interested in understanding what data >> will be monitored to determine the appropriateness of current policy for >> 8.3s. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher >> >> >> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:11:24 +0000 >> From: "Alexander, Daniel" >> To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based >> Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >> Message-ID: >> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" >> >> Jeff, >> >> One of the primary justifications used during the debate of 8.3 >> transfers >> claimed that transfers would put underutilized resources to use. By >> stretching the period to five years, we start trading one underutilized >> resource holder for another. This is a contradiction to the claimed >> benefits that everyone was supposed to accept who objected to these >> transactions. >> >> No sooner than section 8.3 was created the policies came in to expand >> the >> timeframes. The timeframes have already been expanded before having any >> data as to the benefits or consequences of the changes that have been >> made. While I don't claim to know what the magic number should be, I >> think >> this change would be irresponsible at this time, based only on the >> speculations made on this mailing list. >> >> I'm opposed to this proposal. >> >> Dan Alexander >> Speaking as myself >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 29 15:20:42 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:20:42 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <9CADEAD5-C0F5-4701-81BA-9B3E1D355CFD@delong.com> Sent from my iPad On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:06 AM, wrote: > As I previously told you Owen, we are asked once per week by a > prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated > without enduring the rigors of justification. When we identify the > risks for both buyers and sellers alike, they go quiet. You wonder > where they go don't you? I have a pretty good idea they simply seek > alternative means and providers. So it's not fear mongering to suggest > people will disregard the registry. Some do. I cannot quantify it > because we neither endorse nor monitor. > No, I suspect a small number of them go to the black market and most of them realize that paying extra for addresses when the free pool is still available doesn't make sense, so they go to ARIN. Unless you have some hard evidence to the contrary, it is, indeed fear mongering to suggest people will disregard the registry. Do you have any evidence they don't simply go apply directly to ARIN? Owen > Correct, as we are debating transfers you are correct to point out free > allocations in APNIC are needs-based. > > Jeff Mehlenbacher > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based > Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers > From: Owen DeLong > Date: Fri, June 29, 2012 10:38 am > To: > Cc: "Blecker, Christoph" , > "arin-ppml at arin.net" > > > On Jun 29, 2012, at 7:06 AM, > wrote: > >> I also left out the part about the rational, open-minded postings by >> many members of the community suggesting it was worth >> considering...particularly where legacy resources not under contract are >> concerned. The opposition to the proposal was too often centered around >> the belief that speculating / hoarding / stock-piling and other >> fear-monger issues would be the result. Again, until such time as the >> market matures and statistical insight is available (particularly price >> per IP), we need not worry about speculation and capricious consumption. >> It's a sucker bet. >> > > Fear monger issues like the claim that people will disregard the > registry > system if we don't buckle under and remove policy preserving needs > basis? > > Allowing the market to devolve into speculation and hoarding is the > sucker bet in my opinion. > >> I don't think outright elimination of needs assessment on specified >> transfers should be swept under the rug permanently Owen. Things >> change. It wasn't so long ago that the APNIC community--one that is >> considerably larger and more complex than ARIN--had no needs-based >> justification (pre-October 2011). Needs-based justification was >> (re)introduced by APNIC only to enable a compatible needs-based policy >> with ARIN for inter-RIR transfer policy implementation. >> > > Nobody is sweeping it under the rug. We hauled it out into the light > and disinfected it in the court of public opinion. > > Actually, I don't know to what extent you participated in or watched > the debate in the APNIC community, but, I do not agree with your > characterization. Yes, ARIN policy was a factor in the debate, but, > to claim it was the ONLY factor supporting adding needs basis to > APNIC transfer policy is specious. > > Further, APNIC retained needs basis for all allocations/assignments > from the free pool. It was only ever removed for transfers, so claiming > that APNIC had no needs-based justification is also false. They had > no needs-based justification for transfers. > > Owen > >> Jeff Mehlenbacher >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based >> Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >> From: Owen DeLong >> Date: Fri, June 29, 2012 9:20 am >> To: >> Cc: "Blecker, Christoph" , >> "arin-ppml at arin.net" >> >> Jeff leaves out that the proposal was also rejected by tremendous >> opposition >> on PPML and in the show of hands at the PPM prior to the AC's rejection. >> >> I don't know who advised him it was "too radical too soon". I would say >> that >> elimination of needs basis is simply not something the community wants >> to >> embrace. Given history, I expect that to be unlikely to change unless >> and >> until the makeup of the community is sufficiently tilted away from those >> interested >> in managing and operating networks and more towards those looking to >> extract value from the circulation of addresses and other derivatives. >> >> Owen >> >> On Jun 29, 2012, at 6:10 AM, >> wrote: >> >>> Christoph, >>> >>> Fear not, we are not dancing around the issue by proposing 60 months. >>> On February 16th 2012, I submitted a policy proposal for the elimination >>> of needs-based assessment on 8.3 specified transfers. The policy >>> proposal read as follows: >>> >>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients >>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within >>> the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource >>> holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified >>> organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be >>> received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and >>> requires that an Officer Attestation be provided confirming the >>> transferred number resources will be applied to enable current or >>> planned business models. >>> >>> The proposal was rejected by a vote of 10-3 by the AC. I was advised >>> that changing the 24 months to an outright elimination was too radical >>> too soon. >>> >>> Jeff Mehlenbacher >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based >>> Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >>> From: "Blecker, Christoph" >>> Date: Thu, June 28, 2012 2:18 pm >>> To: "'jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com'" >>> >>> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On >>>> Behalf Of jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com >>>> Sent: June-28-12 6:37 AM >>>> To: Owen DeLong >>>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to >>>> 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers >>>> >>>> Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business >>>> model. However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out >>>> (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another >>>> 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other >>>> statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't >>>> terribly compelling is it? Projecting free pool depletion and adding >>>> your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3 >>>> justification duration until sometime 2014. One might be accused of >>>> "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position >>>> while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012 >>>> followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012. >>>> >>>> Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with >>>> prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those >>>> that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free >>>> allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the >>>> justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified >>>> Transfer market under ARIN policy. If efficiently allocating unused >>>> IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers >>>> prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only >>>> with the people and organizations who base their business models on >>>> evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer >>>> policy proposals on that basis. >>>> >>>> Jeff Mehlenbacher >>> >>> Hi Jeff, >>> I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable >>> IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things >>> like IPv6 uptake and such, the major concern is that networks can't >>> reasonably plan what things will look like 5 years from now. Unless this >>> is the case, perhaps it would be better not to dance around the issue >>> and propose removing the needs-based requirement from 8.3 transfers all >>> together. >>> >>> Without more details on what a reasonable 60-month IPv4 usage forecast >>> looks like, I cannot support the proposal as written. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Christoph Blecker >>> The University of British Columbia >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 29 16:11:22 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:11:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <9CADEAD5-C0F5-4701-81BA-9B3E1D355CFD@delong.com> References: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <9CADEAD5-C0F5-4701-81BA-9B3E1D355CFD@delong.com> Message-ID: <7B605176-CB98-4880-B472-DCD55A26B3C1@corp.arin.net> On Jun 29, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > No, I suspect a small number of them go to the black market and most of them realize that paying extra for addresses when the free pool is still available doesn't make sense, so they go to ARIN. > > Unless you have some hard evidence to the contrary, it is, indeed fear mongering to suggest people will disregard the registry. Do you have any evidence they don't simply go apply directly to ARIN? We are now having an increasing number of the larger ISPs coming to ARIN with allocation requests, as can be seen in the statistics regarding ISP allocations at: It is possible that this is the result of improved understanding of the situation subsequent to transfer discussions. It is equally possibly just the result of IPv6 awareness activities, etc. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Fri Jun 29 17:13:29 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:13:29 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> On 6/29/12 10:06 CDT, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > As I previously told you Owen, we are asked once per week by a > prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated > without enduring the rigors of justification. When we identify the > risks for both buyers and sellers alike, they go quiet. You wonder > where they go don't you? I have a pretty good idea they simply seek > alternative means and providers. So it's not fear mongering to suggest > people will disregard the registry. Some do. I cannot quantify it > because we neither endorse nor monitor. We need to find middle ground here guys. John, and others, Needs justifications are not going to go away, so stop asking for the community to make it go away, its not going to happen. However, on the flip side, Owen, and others The community does need to find way of simplifying the process and make needs justification less of a burden if transfers are going to work the way we need them too. If we don't then people will find a way around the process. Owen, you're fond of John Gilmore's quote about the "Internet routing around damage," well if our policies create damage they will get routed around too and that's not fear mongering. So trying to think outside the box here, what if we created some special rules that simplified demonstrating operational need for smaller transfers but still fundamentally kept reasonable needs justifications in place overall. - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of an unaggregated /24, that the original assignment was a single class C or a /24 that is not part of a larger range of addresses held by the same organization originating the transfer, on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of up to 50% of their current holdings or /16 which is ever is smaller on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. - All transfers larger than /16 require demonstrating justified need with a window of 24 or maybe 36 months. This probably needs work on the details, but is something like this a workable compromise? > Correct, as we are debating transfers you are correct to point out free > allocations in APNIC are needs-based. > > Jeff Mehlenbacher -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From farmer at umn.edu Fri Jun 29 17:33:37 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:33:37 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> References: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FEE1F31.1030202@umn.edu> On 6/29/12 16:13 CDT, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 6/29/12 10:06 CDT, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: >> As I previously told you Owen, we are asked once per week by a >> prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated >> without enduring the rigors of justification. When we identify the >> risks for both buyers and sellers alike, they go quiet. You wonder >> where they go don't you? I have a pretty good idea they simply seek >> alternative means and providers. So it's not fear mongering to suggest >> people will disregard the registry. Some do. I cannot quantify it >> because we neither endorse nor monitor. > > We need to find middle ground here guys. > > John, and others, Sorry, that should be; Jeff and others, :( > Needs justifications are not going to go away, so stop asking for the > community to make it go away, its not going to happen. > > However, on the flip side, > > Owen, and others > > The community does need to find way of simplifying the process and make > needs justification less of a burden if transfers are going to work the > way we need them too. If we don't then people will find a way around > the process. Owen, you're fond of John Gilmore's quote about the > "Internet routing around damage," well if our policies create damage > they will get routed around too and that's not fear mongering. > > > So trying to think outside the box here, what if we created some special > rules that simplified demonstrating operational need for smaller > transfers but still fundamentally kept reasonable needs justifications > in place overall. > > - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of an unaggregated /24, > that the original assignment was a single class C or a /24 that is not > part of a larger range of addresses held by the same organization > originating the transfer, on the condition that the recipient puts it > into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such > transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. > > - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of up to 50% of their > current holdings or /16 which is ever is smaller on the condition that > the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they > cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating > justified need. > > - All transfers larger than /16 require demonstrating justified need > with a window of 24 or maybe 36 months. > > This probably needs work on the details, but is something like this a > workable compromise? > >> Correct, as we are debating transfers you are correct to point out free >> allocations in APNIC are needs-based. >> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher > > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 29 18:14:07 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:14:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> References: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> Message-ID: Sent from my iPad On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:13 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 6/29/12 10:06 CDT, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: >> As I previously told you Owen, we are asked once per week by a >> prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated >> without enduring the rigors of justification. When we identify the >> risks for both buyers and sellers alike, they go quiet. You wonder >> where they go don't you? I have a pretty good idea they simply seek >> alternative means and providers. So it's not fear mongering to suggest >> people will disregard the registry. Some do. I cannot quantify it >> because we neither endorse nor monitor. > > We need to find middle ground here guys. > 24 months _IS_ middle ground. Continuing to negotiate for half-way to infinity in an iterative process is a perversion of Zeno's paradox designed to effectively achieve infinity over time. Calling for iterative middle ground is equivalent to calling for infinity. > John, and others, > > Needs justifications are not going to go away, so stop asking for the community to make it go away, its not going to happen. > > However, on the flip side, > > Owen, and others > > The community does need to find way of simplifying the process and make needs justification less of a burden if transfers are going to work the way we need them too. If we don't then people will find a way around the process. Owen, you're fond of John Gilmore's quote about the "Internet routing around damage," well if our policies create damage they will get routed around too and that's not fear mongering. True, but at 24 months, I am not convinced we are creating damage. (other than the damage caused by the extended dichotomy between free pool justification and transfer justification periods). Going to 36 months or 60 months would only exacerbate that damage. > So trying to think outside the box here, what if we created some special rules that simplified demonstrating operational need for smaller transfers but still fundamentally kept reasonable needs justifications in place overall. I'm amenable to discussing that. It sounds reasonable on the surface. However, I don't find it terribly difficult to justify operational need for a smaller allocation/assignment and I believe that the bar for operational need for a transfer is identical to that for an allocation/assignment. > - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of an unaggregated /24, that the original assignment was a single class C or a /24 that is not part of a larger range of addresses held by the same organization originating the transfer, on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. I would be OK with that if they can show that it is at least 50% utilized within 6 months and not merely routed. > - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of up to 50% of their current holdings or /16 which is ever is smaller on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. I could accept this with the same caveat above if it were limited to /20. > - All transfers larger than /16 require demonstrating justified need with a window of 24 or maybe 36 months. 24 months, yes. (current policy already). 36 months, uh, no. See my above concern about damage. > This probably needs work on the details, but is something like this a workable compromise? Within the constraints I described above, perhaps. Owen From farmer at umn.edu Fri Jun 29 18:43:19 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:43:19 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> Message-ID: <4FEE2F87.6060500@umn.edu> On 6/29/12 17:14 CDT, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:13 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> On 6/29/12 10:06 CDT, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: >>> As I previously told you Owen, we are asked once per week by a >>> prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated >>> without enduring the rigors of justification. When we identify the >>> risks for both buyers and sellers alike, they go quiet. You wonder >>> where they go don't you? I have a pretty good idea they simply seek >>> alternative means and providers. So it's not fear mongering to suggest >>> people will disregard the registry. Some do. I cannot quantify it >>> because we neither endorse nor monitor. >> >> We need to find middle ground here guys. >> > > 24 months _IS_ middle ground. Continuing to negotiate for half-way to infinity in an iterative process is a perversion of Zeno's paradox designed to effectively achieve infinity over time. > > Calling for iterative middle ground is equivalent to calling for infinity. I agree with that, however the above didn't say anything about 60 months. We all need to practice a little more active listening. I'm referring to what he is really asking for, or more precisely what he is being asked for; "we are asked once per week by a prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated without enduring the rigors of justification." >> Jeff, and others, >> >> Needs justifications are not going to go away, so stop asking for the community to make it go away, its not going to happen. >> >> However, on the flip side, >> >> Owen, and others >> >> The community does need to find way of simplifying the process and make needs justification less of a burden if transfers are going to work the way we need them too. If we don't then people will find a way around the process. Owen, you're fond of John Gilmore's quote about the "Internet routing around damage," well if our policies create damage they will get routed around too and that's not fear mongering. > > True, but at 24 months, I am not convinced we are creating damage. (other than the damage caused by the extended dichotomy between free pool justification and transfer justification periods). Going to 36 months or 60 months would only exacerbate that damage. > > >> So trying to think outside the box here, what if we created some special rules that simplified demonstrating operational need for smaller transfers but still fundamentally kept reasonable needs justifications in place overall. > > I'm amenable to discussing that. It sounds reasonable on the surface. However, I don't find it terribly difficult to justify operational need for a smaller allocation/assignment and I believe that the bar for operational need for a transfer is identical to that for an allocation/assignment. What you and I think is difficult or not is honestly irrelevant, I here this complaint all the time. Not just through Jeff >> - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of an unaggregated /24, that the original assignment was a single class C or a /24 that is not part of a larger range of addresses held by the same organization originating the transfer, on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. > > I would be OK with that if they can show that it is at least 50% utilized within 6 months and not merely routed. I was thinking routed and actual devices using it, no particular utilization level, but with a contractual claw-back for failure to meet the requirement. If you want a waiver from the normal process you better meet your commitments. The intent here is to facilitate getting old unused Class C's into use. >> - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of up to 50% of their current holdings or /16 which is ever is smaller on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. > > I could accept this with the same caveat above if it were limited to /20. The intent here is to facilitate getting old unused Class B's into use. >> - All transfers larger than /16 require demonstrating justified need with a window of 24 or maybe 36 months. > > 24 months, yes. (current policy already). 36 months, uh, no. See my above concern about damage. I'm fine with 24, if we find can loosen up for the smaller stuff, the big guys have the technical and legal staff, and financial resources to make it work. But, I completely believe that requiring both financial resources and rigorous justification maybe asking to much. I also believe we can't eliminate justified need, to prevent market power plays, but no one is going to corner the market with a /16. >> This probably needs work on the details, but is something like this a workable compromise? > > Within the constraints I described above, perhaps. > > Owen > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== From mysidia at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 20:56:29 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:56:29 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 6/29/12, Milton L Mueller wrote: > oops. You may not realize it, but you just admitted that there is no such > thing as "the community." You've observed that the people involved here fall > into a variety of different groupings with different interests - legacy > holders, speculators, prospective buyers who "want more resources than they > can justify," and others, good guys like you and Hurricane and Comcast. Let's be really really clear. The ARIN community consists of Internet Service Providers and network operators, that require number resources for the purpose of connecting their networks together, using IP, and require the WHOIS service to help coordinate with other networks, for reliable connectivity, and minimal network abuse. If you're anyone else, you are not a member of the community that it's ARIN's job to provide services to. If you happen to by coincidence be both a speculator AND an ISP, or both a prospective buyer, and the operator of a network. Then you are a member of the community, but your special interests or roles as "speculator", "prospective buyer", "academic", or whatever, have nothing to do with the community, and should be left at home. Although you're certainly allowed to share your opinions and views, you should ensure that you disclose any special financial or personal interest you have. And ARIN in providing proper stewardship of the resources, should be ensuring that factions except "network operator"' organizations (and network end user) organizations' are not being served, Especially not at the expense of ISPs and network end users best interests specifically in those roles. And that should be true, even if non-Network operator factions become more numerous on PPML and policy meetings, due to the fact the financial incentive, might encourage more aggressive participation, in order to manipulate policy. ARIN should be sure to recognize and reject any manipulation efforts of that nature that are not in the interest of the specific community ARIN exists to serve. > As my previous message indicated, I have a very strong suspicion that the 24 > month period is arbitrary and has no more or less support than 60 months or > 12 months or 6 months. But since you are saying that the data does not The 24 month period is surely an arbitrary number that was chosen, but there was some agreement to, but the contention that it is no more/less supported than 60 months is wrong. > Tell me: what _kind_ of data would indicate to you that a change is > warranted? Would it be something like a yield curve for address blocks? There are three things that all need to be shown simultaneously, before there's any reason to believe the justification period is too short: 1. Proof of an unmet need for IP addresses in the region, for the purpose of actually running networks, per the RFC2050 criteria; there must be organizations actively seeking resources who are not getting them, because there are not enough resources offered by specified transfer. 2. Lack of interest by organizations seeking IPv4 resources through specified transfer OR organizations that have unused resources leaving them idle and neither returning to ARIN nor offering by specified transfer (an actual showing that organizations really are not participating in the transfer market due to the inefficiency caused by the requirement that they execute multiple transfers instead of just one). 3. That there is no equally expensive, less expensive, or more familiar/convenient source of IP addresses than specified transfer. Until (3) is met, there is no possible data that will show that a longer justification period is suitable, justified, necessary, or appropriate. For example: as long as there are free pool resources available at similar cost, Transfer is a less attractive option, because direct allocation from a pool is adequate, and with a high likelihood provides "Virgin" IP addresses that have never been allocated before, and probably aren't on blacklists. Also, as long as there is still a free pool, organizations in the ARIN region that have dealt with ARIN in the past are likely to continue to make their additional resource requests through ARIN, because they have dealt with ARIN in the past, there is a degree of familiarity and trust. Transfer resources must be significantly less expensive, before many organizations will consider taking on added risk of dealing with potentially unfamiliar third parties, and lengthening the process of getting their resources. They may even prefer to acquire other orgs altogether, and perform 8.2 transfers instead. As long as there is a free pool, the data is expected to be skewed, and therefore unreliable. -- -JH From mysidia at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 22:07:36 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:07:36 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Legacy InterNIC Documents In-Reply-To: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <5C4532955356D2448E74A170672797E6010FE65C47@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On 6/29/12, Steven Ryerse wrote: > This is why I say that I own this block (even if it is small). There were > no restrictions placed on it when I received it. I paid taxes to the > federal government in 1994 and thus my taxes went to pay for the block and > therefore I believe I paid for it. I know others will disagree but since no Your house probably has a street address number assigned to it too. Just because you do, does not mean you have a right to take it with you, whenever you move, or that a new law has to be passed, if the right entity chooses to alter it. Paying taxes wasn't a condition of receiving the number resources. You could pay taxes and still be refused an IP block. You could fail to pay taxes, and still receive the block. You could exist in a different country with no taxes to the USG, and still receive the block. In other words: no connection whatsoever between your payment of taxes and the assignment of IP addresses to your network. >From this, you can conclude the block definitely was not received in exchange for tax dollars. Legacy holders with documents like that own the network that resources were assigned to, but there is no document there conveying an ownership of any resource, or a guarantee of unconditional future equivalent service indefinitely in perpetuity from any future IP address registry, with guarantee of no additional fees or stipulations. You were an owner of a network that the resources were assigned to. As long as you continue to operate the network, follow any rules of the registry that currently apply, and require all the resources , the resource assignment by the registry ought to remain valid. That should apply whether you got your resources in 1996 or 2012. Resources that are being utilized should not be revoked, nor should new rules be applied to existing assignments or allocations, except at times when those assignments or allocations are being changed or updated. That is, the most appropriate thing for the registry to do should maintain the existing assignment. If your needs change, or your contacts change, the registry should change the assignment; for example, update the contact. But that doesn't mean there's an ownership or right to transfer the resources. All privileges except continuing to run the network in place, with the contacts in place, belong to the registry. If any of that becomes invalid, for example the assignment is no longer being used for the assigned network and was fraudulently transferred or is otherwise being used by an organization or network not recorded by the registry, the possibility exists the registry could invalidate the assignment. Now, provisions in current addressing policy may provide you options to transfer some (or all) resources to another organization or to another network, contact, or org, within the registry, and today they do, provided the proper agreements are in place. If the proper agreements are not in place, then the future of the assignment should be regarded as having a degree of uncertainty. -- -JH From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 29 23:25:02 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 03:25:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <27744444-6C07-414B-9F50-9C9E5681915B@corp.arin.net> On Jun 30, 2012, at 2:56 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > ... > Let's be really really clear. The ARIN community consists of > Internet Service Providers and network operators, that require > number resources for the purpose of connecting their networks > together, using IP, and require the WHOIS service to help coordinate > with other networks, for reliable connectivity, and minimal network > abuse. If you're anyone else, you are not a member of the community > that it's ARIN's job to provide services to. Jimmy - You are technically correct regarding those that ARIN directly provides services to. However, while ARIN may not directly provide a party services, there is recognition that technical management of number resources may pose valid social and public policy issues, and hence ARIN's defined policy process accepts input from _all_ parties, regardless of any affiliation or background. > If you happen to by coincidence be both a speculator AND an ISP, or > both a prospective buyer, and the operator of a network. > > Then you are a member of the community, but your special interests or > roles as "speculator", "prospective buyer", "academic", or > whatever, have nothing to do with the community, and should be left > at home. I don't know what you mean by "should be left at home" but please remember that we have an open policy development process. > Although you're certainly allowed to share your opinions and views, > you should ensure that you disclose any special financial or personal > interest you have. To the extent that anyone is recommending policy for direct financial gain, disclosure is both reasonable and expected. For those working in large firms, seldom does policy favorable to their organization result in direct financial gain. > And ARIN in providing proper stewardship of the resources, should be ensuring > that factions except "network operator"' organizations (and network end user) > organizations' are not being served, > > Especially not at the expense of ISPs and network end users best interests > specifically in those roles. > > And that should be true, even if non-Network operator factions > become more numerous > on PPML and policy meetings, due to the fact the financial > incentive, might encourage > more aggressive participation, in order to manipulate policy. > > ARIN should be sure to recognize and reject any manipulation efforts of that > nature that are not in the interest of the specific community ARIN > exists to serve. While the policy development process is completely open, both the ARIN Advisory Council and Board of Trustees is member-elected (which by definition requires parties to be holders of number resources.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mysidia at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 00:29:47 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:29:47 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <27744444-6C07-414B-9F50-9C9E5681915B@corp.arin.net> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <27744444-6C07-414B-9F50-9C9E5681915B@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/29/12, John Curran wrote: > I don't know what you mean by "should be left at home" but please remember > that we have an open policy development process. Honest public input is a very good thing. Left at home or ~/ is a unix reference to the place where any specific propositions belong that are not driven by support of the particular commmunity that ARIN serves. Only propositions supported by and in the interest of resource holders in general get installed in whatever place policies get installed. -- -JH From bill at herrin.us Sat Jun 30 02:10:06 2012 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:10:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> References: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM, David Farmer wrote: > - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of an unaggregated /24, that > the original assignment was a single class C or a /24 that is not part of a > larger range of addresses held by the same organization originating the > transfer, on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use > within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months > without demonstrating justified need. Replace "operational use within..." with "multihomed now or within 3 months" and I'm sold. I don't see how no-need transfers of /24's for single-homed use is a healthy plan... Regards, Bill Herrin > > - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of up to 50% of their current > holdings or /16 which is ever is smaller on the condition that the recipient > puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another > such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. > > - All transfers larger than /16 require demonstrating justified need with a > window of 24 or maybe 36 months. > > This probably needs work on the details, but is something like this a > workable compromise? > > >> Correct, as we are debating transfers you are correct to point out free >> allocations in APNIC are needs-based. >> >> Jeff Mehlenbacher > > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Email:farmer at umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE ? ? ?Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 ? Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 From owen at delong.com Sat Jun 30 05:23:50 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:23:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2BBFEF93-6636-4FCF-969A-69BCAEB9C83B@delong.com> On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On 6/29/12, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> oops. You may not realize it, but you just admitted that there is no such >> thing as "the community." You've observed that the people involved here fall >> into a variety of different groupings with different interests - legacy >> holders, speculators, prospective buyers who "want more resources than they >> can justify," and others, good guys like you and Hurricane and Comcast. > > Let's be really really clear. The ARIN community consists of > Internet Service Providers and network operators, that require > number resources for the purpose of connecting their networks > together, using IP, and require the WHOIS service to help coordinate > with other networks, for reliable connectivity, and minimal network > abuse. If you're anyone else, you are not a member of the community > that it's ARIN's job to provide services to. > This simply isn't true. The community is much more encompassing than those that ARIN provides registration services to. The community is literally anyone with an interest in IP address policy. The voting membership (those that elect the AC and the Board) are ARIN members that hold resources. One need not be a member of ARIN in order to be a member of the community. One need not hold resources to be a member of the community. One need not operate a network to be a member of the community. If you are signed up on PPML and participate, you are a member of the community. > If you happen to by coincidence be both a speculator AND an ISP, or > both a prospective buyer, and the operator of a network. > > Then you are a member of the community, but your special interests or > roles as "speculator", "prospective buyer", "academic", or > whatever, have nothing to do with the community, and should be left > at home. For better or worse, speculators, hoarders, derivatives traders, etc. are actually members of the community if they choose to participate. > Although you're certainly allowed to share your opinions and views, > you should ensure that you disclose any special financial or personal > interest you have. That would be nice, but to the best of my knowledge, it is only required of AC and Board members where there is a clear conflict of interest policy that would apply. > And ARIN in providing proper stewardship of the resources, should be ensuring > that factions except "network operator"' organizations (and network end user) > organizations' are not being served, Again, not true. ARIN should be ensuring that those factions do not receive resource registration services (unless the community decides to permit them to receive resource registration services through policy changes). However, they are entitled to the services of participation in the policy development process just as any network operator, ISP, end user, etc. > Especially not at the expense of ISPs and network end users best interests > specifically in those roles. Who gets to decide what that best interest is and who qualifies and who doesn't? What are the criteria for such a decision? > And that should be true, even if non-Network operator factions > become more numerous > on PPML and policy meetings, due to the fact the financial > incentive, might encourage > more aggressive participation, in order to manipulate policy. As much as I fear this eventuality and it is the primary reason that I am not in favor of pushing 8.3 further down the slippery slope, I'm not sure how we can remain true to our charter and bylaws and the process we have created and actually prevent this. > ARIN should be sure to recognize and reject any manipulation efforts of that > nature that are not in the interest of the specific community ARIN > exists to serve. ARIN who? ARIN staff? The ARIN community (in which case, by what criteria would you define the portion of the community that gets to make such decisions)? It's all well and good to say "ARIN", but, ARIN isn't a body that takes action per se. >> As my previous message indicated, I have a very strong suspicion that the 24 >> month period is arbitrary and has no more or less support than 60 months or >> 12 months or 6 months. But since you are saying that the data does not > > The 24 month period is surely an arbitrary number that was chosen, but there > was some agreement to, but the contention that it is no more/less > supported than 60 months is wrong. True. There was quite a bit of opposition to 36 or more months when that question was asked at the last PPM in Vancouver whereas there was quite a bit less opposition to 24 months (though I felt there was significant opposition there as well). >> Tell me: what _kind_ of data would indicate to you that a change is >> warranted? Would it be something like a yield curve for address blocks? > > There are three things that all need to be shown simultaneously, > before there's any reason to believe the justification period is too > short: > > 1. Proof of an unmet need for IP addresses in the region, for the > purpose of actually running networks, per the RFC2050 criteria; there > must be organizations actively seeking resources who are not getting > them, because there are not enough resources offered by specified > transfer. > > 2. Lack of interest by organizations seeking IPv4 resources through > specified transfer > OR organizations that have unused resources leaving them idle and > neither returning > to ARIN nor offering by specified transfer (an actual showing that > organizations really are not participating in the transfer market due > to the inefficiency caused by the requirement that they execute > multiple transfers instead of just one). I'm not sure how the first criteria proves that a longer justification period is needed. Afterall, at a certain point in the (hopefully) not too distant future, it might merely indicate that IPv4 is no longer expanding. > 3. That there is no equally expensive, less expensive, or more > familiar/convenient source of IP addresses than specified transfer. > Until (3) is met, there is no possible data that will show that a > longer justification period is suitable, justified, necessary, or > appropriate. Agreed. > For example: as long as there are free pool resources available at > similar cost, Transfer is a less attractive option, because direct > allocation from a pool is adequate, and with a high likelihood > provides "Virgin" IP addresses that have never been allocated > before, and probably aren't on blacklists. This is not necessarily true of all free-pool allocations/assignments. Some resources in the freepool are, indeed, recycled. > Also, as long as there is still a free pool, organizations in the > ARIN region that have dealt with ARIN in the past are likely to > continue to make their additional resource requests through ARIN, > because they have dealt with ARIN in the past, there is a degree of > familiarity and trust. Yes, though the 3/24 month dichotomy with transfers does put a bit of a damper on that. > Transfer resources must be significantly less expensive, before many > organizations will consider taking on added risk of dealing with > potentially unfamiliar third parties, and lengthening the process of > getting their resources. They may even prefer to acquire other orgs > altogether, and perform 8.2 transfers instead. Another thing worth considering is that the transfer market is currently somewhere between $10 and $12 per address IIRC. Only organizations with sufficient revenue to support an ROI on that price would consider purchasing them at that price. Many ISPs and other network operators are low-margin businesses and it is entirely possible that expanding their IPv4 customer base would not provide a sufficient ROI to continue expanding with that cost model. > As long as there is a free pool, the data is expected to be skewed, > and therefore > unreliable. Yep. Owen From owen at delong.com Sat Jun 30 05:49:46 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:49:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <4FEE2F87.6060500@umn.edu> References: <20120629080643.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.1d88577a74.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <4FEE1A79.2060001@umn.edu> <4FEE2F87.6060500@umn.edu> Message-ID: <34A2DE8C-EEF8-4730-9373-8B2EAD40F12A@delong.com> On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:43 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > On 6/29/12 17:14 CDT, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:13 PM, David Farmer wrote: >>> On 6/29/12 10:06 CDT, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: >>>> As I previously told you Owen, we are asked once per week by a >>>> prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated >>>> without enduring the rigors of justification. When we identify the >>>> risks for both buyers and sellers alike, they go quiet. You wonder >>>> where they go don't you? I have a pretty good idea they simply seek >>>> alternative means and providers. So it's not fear mongering to suggest >>>> people will disregard the registry. Some do. I cannot quantify it >>>> because we neither endorse nor monitor. >>> >>> We need to find middle ground here guys. >>> >> >> 24 months _IS_ middle ground. Continuing to negotiate for half-way to infinity in an iterative process is a perversion of Zeno's paradox designed to effectively achieve infinity over time. >> >> Calling for iterative middle ground is equivalent to calling for infinity. > > I agree with that, however the above didn't say anything about 60 months. We all need to practice a little more active listening. I'm referring to what he is really asking for, or more precisely what he is being asked for; > > "we are asked once per week by a prospective buyer or seller how these transactions can be accommodated without enduring the rigors of justification." Yes, he's asking to eliminate needs basis justification and he's willing to accept any middle ground that is closer to that than the status quo. That's where he started before we went from 12 to 24 months, so I fail to see how it differs from the iterative set of compromises I describe above. He was at least an active participant in favor of the move to 24 months and I believe one of the people calling for it to be longer as well in the last policy cycle. > >>> Jeff, and others, >>> >>> Needs justifications are not going to go away, so stop asking for the community to make it go away, its not going to happen. >>> >>> However, on the flip side, >>> >>> Owen, and others >>> >>> The community does need to find way of simplifying the process and make needs justification less of a burden if transfers are going to work the way we need them too. If we don't then people will find a way around the process. Owen, you're fond of John Gilmore's quote about the "Internet routing around damage," well if our policies create damage they will get routed around too and that's not fear mongering. >> >> True, but at 24 months, I am not convinced we are creating damage. (other than the damage caused by the extended dichotomy between free pool justification and transfer justification periods). Going to 36 months or 60 months would only exacerbate that damage. >> >> >>> So trying to think outside the box here, what if we created some special rules that simplified demonstrating operational need for smaller transfers but still fundamentally kept reasonable needs justifications in place overall. >> >> I'm amenable to discussing that. It sounds reasonable on the surface. However, I don't find it terribly difficult to justify operational need for a smaller allocation/assignment and I believe that the bar for operational need for a transfer is identical to that for an allocation/assignment. > > What you and I think is difficult or not is honestly irrelevant, I here this complaint all the time. Not just through Jeff I hear the complaint often as well. When I do, I ask more questions... Do you? Upon further investigation, I almost always find that the complainant falls into one of the following categories: + Doesn't have any idea what space they have or how it is used + Did not review the relevant sections of NRPM prior to submitting their request and applied using terms that placed them under utterly incorrect policy sections for their intent. (If you say "we are an ISP..." ARIN can't second-guess you into end-user criteria for example) + Submitted a mal-formed request and took the first round of additional questions as a denial and gave up declaring ARIN "too difficult to work with". + Submitted a request for a large complex network without providing a sufficient or credible justification and became resistant when asked to do so. + Got themselves awkwardly trapped in the you can get a larger aggregate to grow your network if you agree to return... policy and then grew into both the larger aggregate and the space they were supposed to be returning and had no way forward. (I have helped a few organizations disentangle these and they are hard, but they are also self-inflicted wounds so to speak). If you or Jeff can point to "justification is too hard" examples with meaningful details that don't fit into one of those categories, I'd like to know more about it. Otherwise, sorry, but I have little sympathy and I do not believe it is in our best interests to craft policy to make allocations and assignments easily and readily available to those who cannot reasonably show demonstrated need. >>> - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of an unaggregated /24, that the original assignment was a single class C or a /24 that is not part of a larger range of addresses held by the same organization originating the transfer, on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. >> >> I would be OK with that if they can show that it is at least 50% utilized within 6 months and not merely routed. > > I was thinking routed and actual devices using it, no particular utilization level, but with a contractual claw-back for failure to meet the requirement. If you want a waiver from the normal process you better meet your commitments. > > The intent here is to facilitate getting old unused Class C's into use. I understand the intent and I believe that a 50% minimum utilization within 6 months is not at all unreasonable. After all, to get a new /24 from the registry, you have to show immediate utilization of 50%. > >>> - Allow any organization to receive a transfer of up to 50% of their current holdings or /16 which is ever is smaller on the condition that the recipient puts it into operational use within 6 month and they cannot receive another such transfer for 24 months without demonstrating justified need. >> >> I could accept this with the same caveat above if it were limited to /20. > > The intent here is to facilitate getting old unused Class B's into use. That's not what it would do. It places the maximum they can receive at /16 if they have more ?/15 already in inventory. Transferring a /16 to an organization that merely routes it and puts one address on a router interface would meet your test. That's not a justified needs basis, it's an abandonment of needs basis. The test bar has to be higher than that. > >>> - All transfers larger than /16 require demonstrating justified need with a window of 24 or maybe 36 months. >> >> 24 months, yes. (current policy already). 36 months, uh, no. See my above concern about damage. > > I'm fine with 24, if we find can loosen up for the smaller stuff, the big guys have the technical and legal staff, and financial resources to make it work. But, I completely believe that requiring both financial resources and rigorous justification maybe asking to much. The small guys can get it pretty easily from the free pool, so I'm not sure what benefit the community derives from that at the present time or any time in the next 3 policy cycles. > I also believe we can't eliminate justified need, to prevent market power plays, but no one is going to corner the market with a /16. With /16 chunks, it could become cost effective to spawn enough Delaware corporations to do just that. What makes you think it wouldn't? Owen From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 30 05:49:35 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:49:35 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] =?utf-8?q?ARIN-prop-176_Increase_Needs-Based_Justific?= =?utf-8?q?ation_to=0960_months_on_8=2E3_Specified_Transfers?= In-Reply-To: <2BBFEF93-6636-4FCF-969A-69BCAEB9C83B@delong.com> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2BBFEF93-6636-4FCF-969A-69BCAEB9C83B@delong.com> Message-ID: <92f2f35a-c6e1-471e-891a-567d0450734b@email.android.com> There are so many messages I want to respond to, but have been preoccupied with names, not 'numbers' for the last bit. Plus I have only a tablet, and it does not have proper email support. A question though, while I sort of understand why legacies can't vote, sort of, I wonder do your rules allow for legacies, or even non address holders, to be elected (not that you all would want, to, I understand). If not, though calling them members of the community seems a stretch. They should be stakeholders, but they aren't treated that way. Sure we can contribute on a list, but that is only a first small step in inclusion. I admit also that I can't think of myself as a member of a community that considers my behavior illegitimate and thinks of the thing we believe in as more like a disease than a reasonable alternative. Note: I accept the need to be properly listed in the directory and that the RIRs are the guardians of the directories, and am cleaning up my act. I am still concerned for those who would not be allowed to clean up their act because as opposed to being legacies, they acquired from legacies. But I will address the many good arguments people have made in the last weeks once I get back to a real laptop and am no longer trying to live by tablet alone. avri Owen DeLong wrote: > >On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > >> On 6/29/12, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> oops. You may not realize it, but you just admitted that there is no >such >>> thing as "the community." You've observed that the people involved >here fall >>> into a variety of different groupings with different interests - >legacy >>> holders, speculators, prospective buyers who "want more resources >than they >>> can justify," and others, good guys like you and Hurricane and >Comcast. >> >> Let's be really really clear. The ARIN community consists of >> Internet Service Providers and network operators, that require >> number resources for the purpose of connecting their networks >> together, using IP, and require the WHOIS service to help coordinate >> with other networks, for reliable connectivity, and minimal network >> abuse. If you're anyone else, you are not a member of the >community >> that it's ARIN's job to provide services to. >> > >This simply isn't true. The community is much more encompassing than >those that ARIN provides registration services to. > >The community is literally anyone with an interest in IP address >policy. > >The voting membership (those that elect the AC and the Board) are ARIN >members that hold resources. > >One need not be a member of ARIN in order to be a member of the >community. >One need not hold resources to be a member of the community. >One need not operate a network to be a member of the community. > >If you are signed up on PPML and participate, you are a member of the >community. > >> If you happen to by coincidence be both a speculator AND an ISP, or >> both a prospective buyer, and the operator of a network. >> >> Then you are a member of the community, but your special interests >or >> roles as "speculator", "prospective buyer", "academic", or >> whatever, have nothing to do with the community, and should be left >> at home. > >For better or worse, speculators, hoarders, derivatives traders, etc. >are >actually members of the community if they choose to participate. > >> Although you're certainly allowed to share your opinions and views, >> you should ensure that you disclose any special financial or personal >> interest you have. > >That would be nice, but to the best of my knowledge, it is only >required >of AC and Board members where there is a clear conflict of interest >policy >that would apply. > >> And ARIN in providing proper stewardship of the resources, should be >ensuring >> that factions except "network operator"' organizations (and network >end user) >> organizations' are not being served, > >Again, not true. ARIN should be ensuring that those factions do not >receive >resource registration services (unless the community decides to permit >them >to receive resource registration services through policy changes). >However, >they are entitled to the services of participation in the policy >development >process just as any network operator, ISP, end user, etc. > >> Especially not at the expense of ISPs and network end users best >interests >> specifically in those roles. > >Who gets to decide what that best interest is and who qualifies and who >doesn't? >What are the criteria for such a decision? > > >> And that should be true, even if non-Network operator factions >> become more numerous >> on PPML and policy meetings, due to the fact the financial >> incentive, might encourage >> more aggressive participation, in order to manipulate policy. > >As much as I fear this eventuality and it is the primary reason that I >am not >in favor of pushing 8.3 further down the slippery slope, I'm not sure >how we >can remain true to our charter and bylaws and the process we have >created >and actually prevent this. > >> ARIN should be sure to recognize and reject any manipulation efforts >of that >> nature that are not in the interest of the specific community ARIN >> exists to serve. > >ARIN who? ARIN staff? The ARIN community (in which case, by what >criteria >would you define the portion of the community that gets to make such >decisions)? >It's all well and good to say "ARIN", but, ARIN isn't a body that takes >action per se. > >>> As my previous message indicated, I have a very strong suspicion >that the 24 >>> month period is arbitrary and has no more or less support than 60 >months or >>> 12 months or 6 months. But since you are saying that the data does >not >> >> The 24 month period is surely an arbitrary number that was chosen, >but there >> was some agreement to, but the contention that it is no more/less >> supported than 60 months is wrong. > >True. There was quite a bit of opposition to 36 or more months when >that >question was asked at the last PPM in Vancouver whereas there was quite >a bit less opposition to 24 months (though I felt there was significant >opposition there as well). > >>> Tell me: what _kind_ of data would indicate to you that a change is >>> warranted? Would it be something like a yield curve for address >blocks? >> >> There are three things that all need to be shown simultaneously, >> before there's any reason to believe the justification period is too >> short: >> >> 1. Proof of an unmet need for IP addresses in the region, for the >> purpose of actually running networks, per the RFC2050 criteria; >there >> must be organizations actively seeking resources who are not getting >> them, because there are not enough resources offered by specified >> transfer. >> >> 2. Lack of interest by organizations seeking IPv4 resources through >> specified transfer >> OR organizations that have unused resources leaving them idle and >> neither returning >> to ARIN nor offering by specified transfer (an actual showing that >> organizations really are not participating in the transfer market due >> to the inefficiency caused by the requirement that they execute >> multiple transfers instead of just one). > >I'm not sure how the first criteria proves that a longer justification >period >is needed. Afterall, at a certain point in the (hopefully) not too >distant >future, it might merely indicate that IPv4 is no longer expanding. > >> 3. That there is no equally expensive, less expensive, or more >> familiar/convenient source of IP addresses than specified transfer. >> Until (3) is met, there is no possible data that will show that a >> longer justification period is suitable, justified, necessary, or >> appropriate. > >Agreed. > >> For example: as long as there are free pool resources available at >> similar cost, Transfer is a less attractive option, because direct >> allocation from a pool is adequate, and with a high likelihood >> provides "Virgin" IP addresses that have never been allocated >> before, and probably aren't on blacklists. > >This is not necessarily true of all free-pool allocations/assignments. >Some resources in the freepool are, indeed, recycled. > >> Also, as long as there is still a free pool, organizations in the >> ARIN region that have dealt with ARIN in the past are likely to >> continue to make their additional resource requests through ARIN, >> because they have dealt with ARIN in the past, there is a degree of >> familiarity and trust. > >Yes, though the 3/24 month dichotomy with transfers does put a bit >of a damper on that. > >> Transfer resources must be significantly less expensive, before many >> organizations will consider taking on added risk of dealing with >> potentially unfamiliar third parties, and lengthening the process of >> getting their resources. They may even prefer to acquire other orgs >> altogether, and perform 8.2 transfers instead. > >Another thing worth considering is that the transfer market is >currently >somewhere between $10 and $12 per address IIRC. Only organizations >with sufficient revenue to support an ROI on that price would consider >purchasing them at that price. Many ISPs and other network operators >are low-margin businesses and it is entirely possible that expanding >their IPv4 customer base would not provide a sufficient ROI to continue >expanding with that cost model. > >> As long as there is a free pool, the data is expected to be skewed, >> and therefore >> unreliable. > >Yep. > >Owen > >_______________________________________________ >PPML >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Sat Jun 30 06:07:38 2012 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 03:07:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <92f2f35a-c6e1-471e-891a-567d0450734b@email.android.com> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2BBFEF93-6636-4FCF-969A-69BCAEB9C83B@delong.com> <92f2f35a-c6e1-471e-891a-567d0450734b@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4751C9C9-6489-451B-B7DF-7E4D88A362A7@delong.com> On Jun 30, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > There are so many messages I want to respond to, but have been preoccupied with names, not 'numbers' for the last bit. Plus I have only a tablet, and it does not have proper email support. > > A question though, while I sort of understand why legacies can't vote, sort of, I wonder do your rules allow for legacies, or even non address holders, to be elected (not that you all would want, to, I understand). If not, though calling them members of the community seems a stretch. They should be stakeholders, but they aren't treated that way. Sure we can contribute on a list, but that is only a first small step in inclusion. This isn't entirely true. A legacy holder can bring their resources under LRSA or RSA as an LIR/ISP, or, as an end-user. Once you do that, if you are an LIR/ISP, then you are a member. If you are an end-user, then for $500/year, you can become a member. Yes, anyone can run for AC or board regardless of whether they are a member or not. Anyone can contribute on the list and can also attend the public policy meetings. Each person's participation is considered equally whether or not they are a member. > I admit also that I can't think of myself as a member of a community that considers my behavior illegitimate and thinks of the thing we believe in as more like a disease than a reasonable alternative. I actually think it is a relatively small fraction of the community that believes that. > Note: I accept the need to be properly listed in the directory and that the RIRs are the guardians of the directories, and am cleaning up my act. I am still concerned for those who would not be allowed to clean up their act because as opposed to being legacies, they acquired from legacies. But I will address the many good arguments people have made in the last weeks once I get back to a real laptop and am no longer trying to live by tablet alone. If they acquired from legacies outside of policy, then, where did their right or ability to do so come from? I'm not trying to be snarkish here... I really am curious as to what theory you have that would suggest ARIN should modify the registry based on actions with no basis in RFC, policy, predecessor registry policy, IANA policy, etc. Owen From mysidia at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 08:25:07 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:25:07 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <92f2f35a-c6e1-471e-891a-567d0450734b@email.android.com> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2BBFEF93-6636-4FCF-969A-69BCAEB9C83B@delong.com> <92f2f35a-c6e1-471e-891a-567d0450734b@email.android.com> Message-ID: On 6/30/12, Avri Doria wrote: > A question though, while I sort of understand why legacies can't vote, sort > of, I wonder do your rules allow for legacies, or even non address holders, [snip] There is no rule that legacies can't vote. They can vote once they sign a RSA or LRSA for some resource, or acquire any resource under a signed (L)RSA, and become ARIN members, under the same rules that non-legacy holders become ARIN members. Its even possible that a legacy holder votes, if they have some resources that are under a RSA and some resources that are not under a RSA. > RIRs are the guardians of the directories, and am cleaning up my act. I am > still concerned for those who would not be allowed to clean up their act > because as opposed to being legacies, they acquired from legacies. But I There is a problem establishing that the resources were "legitimately acquired". There is no inherent reason that ARIN policy can't be revised to offer a way to normalcy for "resources acquired from legacies" outside the proper process, provided the allocation can be justified based on the utilization of the holder of each "acquired" resource. But it is a hard problem, because doing so, could also encourage legacies to illegitimately "provide" resources in a manner not allowed by policy; outside the proper delegation and transfer processes. Perhaps policy can provide a way for ARIN to offer amnesty for such illegitimately transferred resources, in exchange for paying a penalty, as long as there was a utilization criteria, justified need, and the current user signs a RSA. If you can find a way; I believe it would be good policy, as it could help improve the accuracy of the WHOIS service to provide such an option. > avri -- -JH From mysidia at gmail.com Sat Jun 30 13:20:57 2012 From: mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:20:57 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Statistics for NRPM 8.3 Transfers In-Reply-To: <3AB70F82-7046-452F-98AB-C6077A92682D@corp.arin.net> References: <20120629060025.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.09f2067911.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <3AB70F82-7046-452F-98AB-C6077A92682D@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On 6/29/12, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:00 PM, jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > Jeff - > We're happy to collect any metrics that the community > can agree upon, and would encourage discussion of the > appropriate set. I would suggest.... For each metric: Variables: number of requests received, number of requests completed, number of requests pending but not resolved, number of requests rejected or deferred pending additional justification, number of requests permanently rejected or withdrawn For each variable, daily minimum, maximum, mean, median, and stddev; in the number of requests falling in that category for received, completed, rejected/deferred, and for the size of the requests in that status for that day, in terms of number of IPv4 addresses (block size), AND number of blocks and total IPs per request. Example 2013/01 xxx free pool requests received block size of received requests min=xxx, max=xxx, avg=xxx, mean=xxx, median=xxx, stddev=xxx number of blocks in received requests min=xxx, max=xxx, avg=xxx, mean=xxx, median=xxx, stddev=xxx total size of the requests (number of IPs) min=xxx, max=xxx, avg=xxx, mean=xxx, median=xxx, stddev=xxx xxx free pool requests completed block size of completed requests min=........ ......... xxx free pool requests pending/rejected ...... xxxx 8.2 transfer requests received ......... Categories of requests to count separately: For Daily, Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly, aggregated number of IPv4 address transfer requests for each unique transfer originator and each unique transfer recipient, and the statistics regarding the number of IPv4 addresses that they hold before and after transfers on that date (min, max, mean, median, stddev). for example Yearly 2013 Transfer originator, resources held prior to transfers during the period avg=xxx min=xxx max=xxx med=xxx stddev=xxx Transfer originator, resources held after all transfers in the period avg=xxx min=xxx max=xxx med=xxx stddev=xxx Transfer recipient, ... number of IPv4 address transfer requests to be received by an organization with no current RIR allocation or assignment. Average minimum, maximum, mean, stddev IP address count of all IPv4 assigned resources held by the transfer originator and the transfer recipient prior to the transfer. Average minimum, maximum, mean, stddev IP address count of all IPv4 allocated resources held by the transfer originator and the transfer recipient prior to the transfer. Daily, Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly, number of new IPv4 resource allocation, free pool requests & block size stats. number of IPv4 address returns to ARIN & block size stats.. number of voluntary IPv4 address return requests to ARIN by (L)RSA signed resources not required by an aggregation request & block size stats.. number of voluntary Legacy IPv4 address return requests & block size stats.. number of IPv4 address aggregation requests, with return of addresses required and equal allocation size & block size stats. number of IPv4 address aggregation requests, with return of addresses required and reduced allocation size & block size stats. number of IPv4 address aggregation requests, with return of addresses required and increased allocation size & block size stats. number of transfers of any type & block size stats. number of transfers facilitated through the ARIN STLS & block size stats; require that transfer recipients indicate the means that they used to discover that resources were available, so that it is known if STLS facilitated the transfer being requested or not. number of transfer requests between different RIRs inbound, outbound, & block size stats. number of 8.2 transfer requests & block size stats. Number of 8.2 transfer requests of ISP allocations & block size stats. Number of 8.2 transfer requests of end user assignments & block size stats. number of all 8.3 transfer requests number of 8.3 transfer requests where a Legacy network assignment is requested to convert to an assignment for transfer to an end user & block size stats. number of 8.3 transfer requests where a Legacy network assignment is requested to convert to an allocation for an ISP transfer recipient & block size stats. number of 8.3 transfer requests where an ARIN allocation already under RSA is requested to convert to an end user assignment for the recipient & block size stats. number of 8.3 transfer requests where an ARIN assignment already under RSA is requested to convert to an allocation for the ISP & block size stats. number of 8.3 transfer requests of any type for transfer to a provider allocation number of 8.2 transfer requests of any type for transfer to a provider allocation number transfer requests of any type where an assignment remains an assignment number transfer requests of any type where an allocation remains an allocation number transfer requests of any type where an allocation is requested to convert to an assignment for an end user number transfer requests of any type where an assignment is requested to be converted to an allocation for an ISP -- -JH From jcurran at arin.net Sat Jun 30 17:13:47 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:13:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Statistics for NRPM 8.3 Transfers In-Reply-To: References: <20120629060025.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.09f2067911.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <3AB70F82-7046-452F-98AB-C6077A92682D@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <09A36C91-87F5-4162-AFB2-153751471FD7@arin.net> Jimmy - I'm not trying to discourage you, but do need to point out that the larger the list of metrics, the longer until they are all available. Is there any prioritization to these metrics which would you would apply to assist you in your NRPM 8.3 policy development efforts? This would also allow us to size up the development and documentation effort that would be entailed. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Jun 30, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > I would suggest.... > > For each metric: Variables: number of requests received, number of > requests completed, number of requests pending but not resolved, > number of requests rejected or deferred pending additional > justification, number of requests permanently rejected or withdrawn > > For each variable, daily minimum, maximum, mean, median, and stddev; > in the number of requests falling in that category for > received, completed, rejected/deferred, and for the size of the > requests in that status for that day, in > terms of number of IPv4 addresses (block size), > AND number of blocks and total IPs per request. > > Example > 2013/01 xxx free pool requests received > block size of received > requests min=xxx, max=xxx, avg=xxx, > mean=xxx, median=xxx, > stddev=xxx > number of blocks in received > requests min=xxx, max=xxx, avg=xxx, > mean=xxx, median=xxx, > stddev=xxx > total size of the requests > (number of IPs) min=xxx, max=xxx, avg=xxx, > mean=xxx, median=xxx, > stddev=xxx > > > xxx free pool requests completed > block size of completed > requests min=........ > ......... > xxx free pool requests pending/rejected > ...... > xxxx 8.2 transfer requests received > ......... > > Categories of requests to count separately: > For Daily, Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly, > > aggregated number of IPv4 address transfer requests for each unique > transfer originator and each unique transfer recipient, and the > statistics regarding the number of IPv4 addresses that they hold > before and after transfers on that date (min, max, mean, median, > stddev). > for example > Yearly 2013 > Transfer originator, resources held prior to > transfers during the period avg=xxx min=xxx max=xxx med=xxx > stddev=xxx > Transfer originator, resources held after all > transfers in the period avg=xxx min=xxx max=xxx med=xxx stddev=xxx > Transfer recipient, ... > > > > > number of IPv4 address transfer requests to be received by an > organization with no current RIR allocation or assignment. > Average minimum, maximum, mean, stddev IP address count > of all IPv4 assigned resources held by the transfer originator and the > transfer recipient prior to the transfer. > Average minimum, maximum, mean, stddev IP address count > of all IPv4 allocated resources held by the transfer originator and > the transfer recipient prior to the transfer. > > > Daily, Monthly, Quarterly, Yearly, > > number of new IPv4 resource allocation, free pool requests & block > size stats. > > number of IPv4 address returns to ARIN & block size stats.. > > number of voluntary IPv4 address return requests to ARIN by (L)RSA > signed resources not required by an aggregation request & block > size stats.. > > number of voluntary Legacy IPv4 address return requests & block size stats.. > > number of IPv4 address aggregation requests, with return of > addresses required and equal allocation size & block size stats. > > number of IPv4 address aggregation requests, with return of > addresses required and reduced allocation size & block size stats. > > number of IPv4 address aggregation requests, with return of > addresses required and increased allocation size & block size stats. > > > number of transfers of any type & block size stats. > > number of transfers facilitated through the ARIN STLS & block size stats; > require that transfer recipients indicate the means that they used > to discover > that resources were available, so that it is known if STLS > facilitated the transfer being requested or not. > > > number of transfer requests between different RIRs inbound, > outbound, & block size stats. > > number of 8.2 transfer requests & block size stats. > > Number of 8.2 transfer requests of ISP allocations & block size stats. > > Number of 8.2 transfer requests of end user assignments & block size stats. > > > number of all 8.3 transfer requests > > number of 8.3 transfer requests where a Legacy network assignment is > requested to convert to an assignment for transfer to an end user & > block size stats. > > number of 8.3 transfer requests where a Legacy network assignment is > requested to convert to an allocation for an ISP transfer recipient > & block size stats. > > > number of 8.3 transfer requests where an ARIN allocation already > under RSA is requested to convert to an end user assignment for the > recipient & block size stats. > > number of 8.3 transfer requests where an ARIN assignment already > under RSA is requested to convert to an allocation for the ISP & > block size stats. > > number of 8.3 transfer requests of any type for transfer to a > provider allocation > number of 8.2 transfer requests of any type for transfer to a > provider allocation > > number transfer requests of any type where an assignment remains an > assignment > number transfer requests of any type where an allocation remains an allocation > > number transfer requests of any type where an allocation is > requested to convert to an assignment for an end user > > number transfer requests of any type where an assignment is > requested to be converted to an allocation for an ISP > > > > -- > -JH > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Sat Jun 30 18:07:41 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:07:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers In-Reply-To: <92f2f35a-c6e1-471e-891a-567d0450734b@email.android.com> References: <20120628030510.a9ea43ae5a3fe419ce3b8d7ea1f8bec0.6d8c08c87a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21A5728@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2BBFEF93-6636-4FCF-969A-69BCAEB9C83B@delong.com> <92f2f35a-c6e1-471e-891a-567d0450734b@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Jun 30, 2012, at 5:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > A question though, while I sort of understand why legacies can't vote, sort of, I wonder do your rules allow for legacies, or even non address holders, to be elected (not that you all would want, to, I understand). If not, though calling them members of the community seems a stretch. They should be stakeholders, but they aren't treated that way. Sure we can contribute on a list, but that is only a first small step in inclusion. Avri - Anyone can be elected to the ARIN Board or ARIN AC. > I admit also that I can't think of myself as a member of a community that considers my behavior illegitimate and thinks of the thing we believe in as more like a disease than a reasonable alternative. I don't know if that's actually the case (that the community considers your behavior illegitimate); if you feel that you must be judged, then I'd stay with adopted policy as the basis. Aside from responding to requests to validate your Whois contact periodically, you're likely to continue to use your IP block unchanged from how you've been doing so over the years. > Note: I accept the need to be properly listed in the directory and that the RIRs are the guardians of the directories, and am cleaning up my act. I am still concerned for those who would not be allowed to clean up their act because as opposed to being legacies, they acquired from legacies. But I will address the many good arguments people have made in the last weeks once I get back to a real laptop and am no longer trying to live by tablet alone. Look forward to your participation! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN