From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 07:41:40 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:41:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> Message-ID: <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> On May 31, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > On 5/31/2015 6:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> As stated? The concern is the potential for A->B->Money lather, rinse, repeat. > > Please explain why this matters one bit after ARIN no longer has a free pool from which the addresses might be coming. An excellent question for the community carefully consider as we move into a post free-pool depletion era. (In fact, for comparison sake, it could be helpful to consider what transfer policies would be desired in a world in which all of the IPv4 address space had been initially and 100% pre-allocated, and only now transfer policies were now being considered to extend the useful life of the system? it?s quite possible that the result would not bear any resemblance to our current allocation-based transfer policies.) > I will note that there's really no stopping addresses from being used anywhere by anyone? That is correct; the transfers are of rights applicable to specific address blocks in the Internet Numbers Registry system - contrary to the assertions of some, these are not rights to be in anyone?s routers or in the routing table, etc. > all we're talking about is whether or not ARIN will be recording this in their database. That?s an interesting postulate; I?ll observe that the rights are to address blocks in the registry and that makes it rather challenging to assert any rights to the address blocks unless those rights were transferred in accordance with registry policy, i.e. this is not a recording issue - a transfer in accordance with policy transfers specific rights for specific entries in the Internet numbers registry system to the recipient, an attempted transfer which doesn?t meet policy doesn?t transfer those rights, and it is quite unclear what, if anything, an asserted recipient is actually receiving. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 07:45:54 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 07:45:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <78819096-D0CB-4A36-95A4-A19CD351926D@gmail.com> References: <8116cb7e45d64e47a0083b0a05dfa08b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <9baf827593514a999ac3368346373548@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <78819096-D0CB-4A36-95A4-A19CD351926D@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't know how the community will view the complexities of such a global one space strategy. The 5 RIRs will begin to look like an imperial umbrella don't you think? Arin has done a lot of work to fold into the pool the legacy blocks out there. I regard that as hoarding and the jury is still out IMO on the amount and extent of future speculation before Ipv6 gains traction. The regional policy status of the RIRs also provide for a degree of definition that I think may be lost in a global foot loose fancy free monolith.... that the registry system could become? And that could, offer power centers like China and others to introduce perhaps even more restrictive practices than currently perceived. I just see more questions than answers Milton, and as you suggest, global policy may come down to.. no policy at all. Hence my "If at all". RD On May 31, 2015 10:02 PM, "Milton Mueller" wrote: > > Because I favor A global number space and greater flexibility for organizations in the use of the addresses that they have. I think most of the paranoia about speculation and hoarding is unwarranted in results and needless restrictions. > > Milton L Mueller > > On May 31, 2015, at 18:55, Rudolph Daniel wrote: > >> Milton >> >> If you support a policy change REF: 2015-2, >> Why would you support it? >> RD >> >> On May 31, 2015 6:38 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>> >>> I think an ARIN policy change is in fact all that is needed. And asking for a global policy for anything related to transfers, unfortunately, means there will be no policy at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Rudolph Daniel [mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 11:45 AM >>> To: Milton L Mueller >>> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 >>> >>> >>> >>> I would agree Milton and global policy is global policy. >>> >>> I don't see the any value in changing Arin policy on this issue my own opinion. >>> RD >>> >>> On May 31, 2015 10:49 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: >>>> >>>> It?s very na?ve for people to suggest that national policy in China is going to be affected by a global policy of RIRs. >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel >>>> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:49 PM >>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>That?s why I didn?t propose language? I don?t think the issue in question can be unilaterally addressed, so I think we should accept that and those that are interested can begin work on a globally coordinated policy if they desire to do so.<<< >>>> >>>> Tend to agree ...It may be better addressed at global policy level if at all. >>>> RD >>>> >>>> On May 30, 2015 12:00 PM, wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers >>>>> to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:16:34 -0700 >>>>> From: Owen DeLong >>>>> To: Jason Schiller >>>>> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" >>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 >>>>> (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) >>>>> Message-ID: <8A9F435E-20BF-4E90-9141-99A7D93FC6EE at delong.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>> >>>>> If it were enforceable, it would address my concern. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that we are then looking to have an ARIN contract enjoin an action by the organization in another RIR which I am not sure would give us any recourse whatsoever were that contract to be violated. >>>>> >>>>> That?s why I didn?t propose language? I don?t think the issue in question can be unilaterally addressed, so I think we should accept that and those that are interested can begin work on a globally coordinated policy if they desire to do so. >>>>> >>>>> We?ve already seen that attempting to unilaterally influence minimum policy requirements on other regions is unlikely to work. Witness RIPEs recent ?workaround? to ?compatible needs basis?. I am not especially interested in expanding this problem space. >>>>> >>>>> Owen >>>>> >>>>> > On May 29, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Jason Schiller wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Owen, >>>>> > >>>>> > So does this text cover your proposal then? >>>>> > >>>>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 >>>>> > Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) >>>>> > >>>>> > Date: 26 May 2015 >>>>> > >>>>> > Problem Statement: >>>>> > >>>>> > Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the >>>>> > transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan >>>>> > are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 >>>>> > months of receipt. >>>>> > >>>>> > Policy statement: >>>>> > >>>>> > Replace 8.4, bullet 4, to read: >>>>> > >>>>> > "> Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a >>>>> > transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources >>>>> > from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the approval of a transfer >>>>> > request. >>>>> > - This restriction does not include M&A transfers. >>>>> > - This restriction does not include a transfer to a wholly owned >>>>> > subsidiary out side of the ARIN service region >>>>> > if the recipient org will be required to not transfer any IP space >>>>> > for the remaining balance of 12 month window." >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> On May 28, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Jason Schiller > wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Owen, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> How does that differ from the policy text I sent? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Can you send an idea of policy text? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I thought the text I sent said that an ARIN org can transfer IPs out to another wholely owned subsidiary in another RIR region if they have been the recipient of transfer in less that 12 months IF the recipient org will be required (read by recipient's RIR policy) to hold the transfered resource for the balance of the 12 months. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > Your proposal allows substitution. >>>>> > >>>>> > ARIN->Other RIR space A >>>>> > Space B Other RIR-> Money/etc. >>>>> > >>>>> > I want to see substitution transfers prohibited. >>>>> > >>>>> > Owen >>>>> > >>>>> >> ___Jason >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On May 28, 2015 8:31 AM, "Owen DeLong" > wrote: >>>>> >> Or simply not permit it under ARIN policy until such exists. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Owen >>>>> >> >>>>> >> > On May 28, 2015, at 1:49 PM, John Curran > wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > On May 27, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> My suggestion is that I don't mind (virtually) unrestricted moves of addresses to different regions staying with the same organization. However, if we are to allow that, I want us to find a way that you can't merely use that as a way to move addresses out of flip protection to then flip them to another organization via an RIR with a less restrictive transfer policy. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> So... If you transfer addresses to another region, keeping them in the same organization, no penalty. However, you are not allowed to subsequently transfer them (or other addresses in that region) to an external party for at least 12 months. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > That second portion that you seek would affect the ongoing operation of >>>>> >> > another RIR, i.e. it requires them having some explicit policy to that effect. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > To obtain the result you seek, we either need globally coordinated transfer >>>>> >> > policy in this area, or you need to make the inter-RIR transfer policy explicit >>>>> >> > in this regard in determination of compatibility. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > /John >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > John Curran >>>>> >> > President and CEO >>>>> >> > ARIN >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > _______________________________________________________ >>>>> > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com |571-266-0006 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>>> URL: < http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150529/10dd910c/attachment-0001.html > >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-PPML mailing list >>>>> ARIN-PPML at arin.net >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>>>> >>>>> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 119, Issue 23 >>>>> ****************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jun 1 10:21:50 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:21:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> Message-ID: <10f2e175db2f4ad7b734974290b2b325@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> As stated? The concern is the potential for A->B->Money lather, rinse, repeat. If people abuse the policy ARIN has the leverage to affect the abusers, and that should be enough. No need for a global policy. ARIN has no leverage once the resources have left the ARIN region, so your argument here is specious at best. MM: Obviously false. ARIN notes the violation of policy and doesn?t approve the next transfer request from that entity. That would make your ?abuse? a very short-term and costly strategy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 1 13:35:41 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:35:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> John, >> all we're talking about is whether or not ARIN will be recording this in their database. > > I?ll observe that the rights are to address blocks in the > registry and that makes it rather challenging to assert any rights to the address blocks > unless those rights were transferred in accordance with registry policy, An interesting and worrisome assertion. If organization A purchases a block of addresses from organization B _and is able to convince their ISP(s) to route that block of addresses_, it would seem the "rights" to that address block have been transferred from A to B, regardless of ARIN's position on the matter (they aren't a party to the transaction). In a post IPv4 free pool world, where demand vastly outstrips supply and there will be competitive pressure on ISPs to accept prefixes presented by customers for routing, I have some skepticism the lack of accurate registration information in ARIN's database is going to be much of an issue (particularly if both A and B attest to the ISP(s) that the "transfer" was legit). The fact that if that "transfer" was done outside of ARIN's policies resulting in ARIN refusing to register that transfer in the ARIN registry database would seem to have little impact other than to damage ARIN's registration database. Do that enough and I suspect "the community" will begin to look elsewhere for registration database services -- as you're aware, no one is forced to use ARIN's database. While I guess it is true that if you view the "rights" in question as the entry in the ARIN registration database (a very odd viewpoint IMHO -- very much the tail wagging the dog from my perspective), this seems a bit divorced from reality as reflected by the actual use of address space on the Internet. Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American _Registry_ for Internet Numbers again? Thanks, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From matthew at matthew.at Mon Jun 1 13:54:57 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:54:57 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <556C9C71.5030504@matthew.at> On 6/1/2015 10:35 AM, David Conrad wrote: > John, > >>> all we're talking about is whether or not ARIN will be recording this in their database. >> I?ll observe that the rights are to address blocks in the >> registry and that makes it rather challenging to assert any rights to the address blocks >> unless those rights were transferred in accordance with registry policy, > An interesting and worrisome assertion. > I agree. While by not bothering to register the changed usage of a particular integer or set of integers in a database so as to avoid policy certainly means that I lose my right to have that registration look the way I (or others, including law enforcement) might prefer, I don't believe that ARIN or any other registry has any power to prevent me from using any integers I want in my own routers and network. And assuming that I can find a provider willing to accept my BGP announcement using those integers (which should be pretty easy, if the currently-registered party writes a letter saying it is ok with them), then those are the integers I'm using as "IP addresses". This could be changed by the addition of laws, but I'm not sure we want those any more than we'd want laws preventing me from using certain integers as page numbers in a book (or even as made up driver license numbers in a work of fiction). Matthew Kaufman From alh-ietf at tndh.net Mon Jun 1 14:06:39 2015 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:06:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <07d601d09c95$b55bd920$20138b60$@tndh.net> David Conrad wrote: >>> snip > > While I guess it is true that if you view the "rights" in question as the entry > in the ARIN registration database (a very odd viewpoint IMHO -- very much > the tail wagging the dog from my perspective), this seems a bit divorced > from reality as reflected by the actual use of address space on the Internet. Since the RIRs collectively "have no say in routing" (or other actual use), the database entry is the only thing that can be claimed under "rights". > > Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management > of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information > when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. > In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American _Registry_ > for Internet Numbers again? To a first order I agree with you, but the more appropriate question might be: what is the point of any RIR 'policy statement' wrt IPv4 post runout? This entire discussion is about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Once the free pool is gone, the only real useful RIR activity is maintaining a current database. Restrictive policies that get in the way of business will be ignored, and the database will become stale. Trying to "protect the public" from speculative activities related to IPv4 is actually stalling the adoption of IPv6. Get out of the way and let the market operate. Once the price of maintaining IPv4 gets real, it will be clearer to everyone why they should be moving away from it. Artificially bounding the price through restrictive policies does not help. Tony From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 14:22:24 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:22:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:35 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > John, > >>> all we're talking about is whether or not ARIN will be recording this in their database. >> >> I?ll observe that the rights are to address blocks in the >> registry and that makes it rather challenging to assert any rights to the address blocks >> unless those rights were transferred in accordance with registry policy, > > An interesting and worrisome assertion. > > If organization A purchases a block of addresses from organization B _and is able to convince their ISP(s) to route that block of addresses_, it would seem the "rights" to that address block have been transferred from A to B, regardless of ARIN's position on the matter (they aren't a party to the transaction). David - Which rights do you refer to above? You?re implying a "right to have an address block routed?, but we know that parties make such decisions based on many business criteria, and registration status of an address block is only one factor. > While I guess it is true that if you view the "rights" in question as the entry in the ARIN registration database (a very odd viewpoint IMHO -- very much the tail wagging the dog from my perspective), this seems a bit divorced from reality as reflected by the actual use of address space on the Internet. If you believe that there is some "right to route? contained in the Internet numbers registry, then that?s a fairly fundamental shift in the nature of registry system, and would represent a serious change from our present loosely-coupled system where it is clear that address holders gain uniqueness from the Internet numbers registry, but that doesn?t have direct rights implication to what service providers decide to put (or not) in their routing tables... i.e. are you proposing changing this so that address block holders are credited with some specific rights that affect routing, and that ISPs agree to be bound by same? I have a solid understanding of how the Internet numbers registry system provides some very useful uniqueness properties for the Internet globally as-is, but obviously have some trepidation about these rights over the routing of ISPs that you believe the RIRs should be tracking... Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 14:28:02 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:28:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556C9C71.5030504@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <556C9C71.5030504@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: ... I don't believe that ARIN or any other registry has any power to prevent me from using any integers I want in my own routers and network. Matthew I fully agree, but you might want to compare notes with David, as he seems to have created rights to address blocks listed within routing tables, rather than address holders having rights to address block entries in the Internet Numbers Registry... Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Mon Jun 1 14:45:22 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:45:22 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <07d601d09c95$b55bd920$20138b60$@tndh.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <07d601d09c95$b55bd920$20138b60$@tndh.net> Message-ID: <556CA842.20207@matthew.at> On 6/1/2015 11:06 AM, Tony Hain wrote: > Trying to "protect the public" from speculative activities related to > IPv4 is actually stalling the adoption of IPv6. Get out of the way and > let the market operate. Once the price of maintaining IPv4 gets real, > it will be clearer to everyone why they should be moving away from it. > Artificially bounding the price through restrictive policies does not > help. +1 And this is exactly why I asked earlier why the community believes that "the potential for A->B->Money lather, rinse, repeat" matters at all once the free pool is empty. Matthew Kaufman From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 14:50:05 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:50:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > Anti-flip shouldn't matter the moment there's no free pool left to allocate > from. Hi Matthew, That's only true if everybody is playing by the same rules. I asked, but I still haven't heard someone explain the CNNIC rules and process that facilitate IPv4 addresses transferring out of China and over to North America. Reciprocity is something of a requirement for free trade. On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:41 AM, John Curran wrote: > On May 31, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> I will note that there's really no stopping addresses from being used anywhere by anyone? > > That is correct; the transfers are of rights applicable to specific address blocks in the > Internet Numbers Registry system - contrary to the assertions of some, these are not > rights to be in anyone?s routers or in the routing table, etc. Hi John, That duplicitous statement has been bantered about since the beginning of the RIRs. The exact statement is technically accurate but falls well short of truthful. It implies a total disconnect between registration and routing which is patently false. A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. That's what the address registries and registrations are for. And sufficient torts in the common law back it up. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Mon Jun 1 15:00:02 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:00:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> Message-ID: > That's only true if everybody is playing by the same rules. I asked, but I still > haven't heard someone explain the CNNIC rules and process that facilitate > IPv4 addresses transferring out of China and over to North America. > Reciprocity is something of a requirement for free trade. I didn't see this question. Our experience has been we can move space from CNNIC to APNIC, and then APNIC has reciprocity with ARIN. So CNNIC has reciprocity with ARIN via APNIC (just like ARIN to CNNIC has to first go through APNIC). From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 15:16:40 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:16:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <556C9C71.5030504@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:28 PM, John Curran > wrote: On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: ... I don't believe that ARIN or any other registry has any power to prevent me from using any integers I want in my own routers and network. Matthew I fully agree, but you might want to compare notes with David, as he seems to have created rights to address blocks listed within routing tables, rather than address holders having rights to address block entries in the Internet Numbers Registry? For avoidance of doubt about the rights referenced above, both the RSA and LRSA make clear that address holders have the following rights - "ARIN shall (i) provide the Services to Holder in accordance with the Service Terms and (ii) grant to Holder the following specified rights: (1) The exclusive right to be the registrant of the Included Number Resources within the ARIN database; (2) The right to use the Included Number Resources within the ARIN database; and (3) The right to transfer the registration of the Included Number Resources pursuant to the Policies.? There?s no doubt that ARIN can provide to these rights to the address holder, but it?s worth noting that the specified 'right to use? is clearly within respect to ARIN database, not any right that is predicated upon (or directly applicable to) the routing tables of ISPs globally. The Internet number registry system is joint activity that provides benefits for those who voluntarily participate therein - you?re not obligated in the least to make use of it, you can include any IP address block you want in your routing tables, but don?t be surprised if others expect you to participate in the system. A nice slide deck that summarizes this voluntary nature is here: http://www.ptc.org/ptc14/images/papers/upload/Presentation_TS9_ConradDavid.pdf FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Mon Jun 1 15:21:13 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:21:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> Message-ID: I would like to retract this statement I made. I was challenged off-list. I went and looked through our history, and I appear to be mistaken. We did not move space out of CNNIC. And apparently, there is no reciprocity -- CNNIC cannot be moved to APNIC. Apologies for the errant statement. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Huberman > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 12:00 PM > To: William Herrin; Matthew Kaufman > Cc: Rudolph Daniel; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > > > That's only true if everybody is playing by the same rules. I asked, > > but I still haven't heard someone explain the CNNIC rules and process > > that facilitate > > IPv4 addresses transferring out of China and over to North America. > > Reciprocity is something of a requirement for free trade. > > I didn't see this question. Our experience has been we can move space from > CNNIC to APNIC, and then APNIC has reciprocity with ARIN. So CNNIC has > reciprocity with ARIN via APNIC (just like ARIN to CNNIC has to first go > through APNIC). > _______________________________________________ > 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 1 15:33:00 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:33:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> Message-ID: <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin > wrote: ... A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. Bill - if you think that there?s a legal obligation on the ISPs to follow the registry, then please provide a citation... As I noted, we could indeed create such an obligation as part of the registry services agreement, but it is rather unclear why that would be desirable (and would significantly change the voluntary cooperative nature of the system.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 16:09:50 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:09:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the >> registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within >> the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. > > if you think that there?s a legal obligation on the ISPs to follow the > registry, then please provide a citation... Hi John, I sell you hosting services using a block of IPs that I advertise to my ISPs. Another end user advertises routes to those same IPs for their services. Whichever of us has the solid registration claim wins the _tortious interference_ case against end-user and his ISPs. Handily. It's almost a cookie-cutter violation. Notably, ARIN is not a party to the case. More, neither plaintiff nor defendant have contracts with each other nor with any mutual third party. The claim is that defendant unlawfully interfered with plaintiffs ability to perform his business. The registration is _evidence_ of who interfered with whom. Tortious Interference goes all the way back to the 1600s in England. Its parameters are well established. I expect ARIN counsel can identify additional torts for which the registration likely offers the decisive evidence of guilt. I'd encourage you to take up the matter with him. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 16:22:08 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:22:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:21 PM, David Huberman wrote: > apparently, there is no reciprocity -- CNNIC cannot be moved to APNIC. Then how is it possible that APNIC is considered to have reciprocal and compatible transfer policies with ARIN as required under section NRPM 8.4 when APNIC operates much or most of its addressing policy through subregistries like CNNIC? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 16:33:27 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:33:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the >>> registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within >>> the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. >> >> if you think that there?s a legal obligation on the ISPs to follow the >> registry, then please provide a citation... > > Hi John, > > I sell you hosting services using a block of IPs that I advertise to > my ISPs. Another end user advertises routes to those same IPs for > their services. Whichever of us has the solid registration claim wins > the _tortious interference_ case against end-user and his ISPs. > Handily. It's almost a cookie-cutter violation. Bill - Even a finding to that effect would not reflect any specific rights in routing table of the parties - it only means that that one party interfered in the commerce of another. If you provide an actual citation of such a finding, it should be fairly easy to find the language to that effect in the judgement. > I expect ARIN counsel can identify additional torts for which the > registration likely offers the decisive evidence of guilt. Registry information is often used as evidence in legal matters, but that does not support your assertion that ?a registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within the routing infrastructure on the public Internet? Do you have any actual examples of someone enforcing this alleged right in court? (it would be helpful for the communtiy to know which ISP?s routing interior/exterior routing table has been constrained as a result and in what manner.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 16:36:17 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:36:17 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the >>> registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within >>> the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. >> >> if you think that there?s a legal obligation on the ISPs to follow the >> registry, then please provide a citation... > > I sell you hosting services using a block of IPs that I advertise to > my ISPs. Another end user advertises routes to those same IPs for > their services. Whichever of us has the solid registration claim wins > the _tortious interference_ case against end-user and his ISPs. > Handily. It's almost a cookie-cutter violation. > > Notably, ARIN is not a party to the case. More, neither plaintiff nor > defendant have contracts with each other nor with any mutual third > party. The claim is that defendant unlawfully interfered with > plaintiffs ability to perform his business. The registration is > _evidence_ of who interfered with whom. > > Tortious Interference goes all the way back to the 1600s in England. > Its parameters are well established. > > I expect ARIN counsel can identify additional torts for which the > registration likely offers the decisive evidence of guilt. I'd > encourage you to take up the matter with him. So to be clear - ARIN does not confer a right upon registration to exclude others from routing an address block on the Internet. Instead, the law itself confers that exclusive right as a consequence of the ARIN registration. Regardless, the registrant possesses the lawful right to exclude anyone else from using his ARIN-registered IP address on the public Internet. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 16:42:13 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:42:13 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran wrote: > Registry information is often used as evidence in legal matters, but that > does not support your assertion that ?a registration is most emphatically > intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use > of those numbers within the routing infrastructure on the public Internet? Hell John, when we get an ARIN registration, who here do you think is asking "pretty please" to be the exclusive user? Seriously! > Do you have any actual examples of someone enforcing this alleged > right in court? I don't have any examples of anybody violating it long enough to bother with the effort of taking them to court. The violations tend to get shut down pretty quickly after the rights-holder notices. It's just that obvious. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 17:01:14 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:01:14 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran wrote: > If you provide an actual citation of such a finding, > it should be fairly easy to find the language to that effect in the judgement. Let me put this another way: If I were to find an ISP willing to let me announce 199.43.0.0/24, how long do you think it would take ARIN counsel to figure out what to sue us for? Seriously man, if you really believe you or I have no legal recourse when someone hijacks our routes, that we're all just subject to the whimsy of a utopian system of courtesy and cooperation, or that the ARIN registration is not a decisive part of resulting litigation, you really ought to have a long talk with ARIN counsel. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From matthew at matthew.at Mon Jun 1 17:04:43 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:04:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <556CC8EB.4030907@matthew.at> On 6/1/2015 1:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the >>> registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within >>> the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. >> if you think that there?s a legal obligation on the ISPs to follow the >> registry, then please provide a citation... > Hi John, > > I sell you hosting services using a block of IPs that I advertise to > my ISPs. Another end user advertises routes to those same IPs for > their services. Whichever of us has the solid registration claim wins > the _tortious interference_ case against end-user and his ISPs. > Handily. It's almost a cookie-cutter violation. > But in the case at hand, holder X writes a letter to non-holder Y saying "sure, I'm ok with you advertising these addresses for the next year" If holder X then sues non-holder Y and presents the ARIN registration as evidence, that letter isn't going to make this a "cookie-cutter violation" any more. And further, in the case at hand, holder X *doesn't* sue non-holder Y... instead a bunch of relying parties, including law enforcement, just can't see who really has the legal use of the addresses, because ARIN refused to update their records because some arbitrary policies weren't followed. Matthew Kaufman From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 17:06:03 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:06:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <24D7DDE9-7689-486C-8014-FD8A71C78509@arin.net> On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > > So to be clear - ARIN does not confer a right upon registration to > exclude others from routing an address block on the Internet. Bill - That was my original statement. You disagreed, and asserted the following >> "a registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant >> the right to -exclude- others? use of those numbers within the routing >> infrastructure on the public Internet? So the question I?ve asked is: What is nature of this legal duty imposed on another as a result of you receiving an address block? (i.e. what is the ?right? that you claim parties receive with respect to the Internet routing tables?) > Instead, the law itself confers that exclusive right as a consequence of the > ARIN registration. Regardless, the registrant possesses the lawful > right to exclude anyone else from using his ARIN-registered IP address > on the public Internet. Laws that convey rights are usually quite clear about doing so; it appears that you are convoluting your expectations about how ISP?s should behave with an actual legal right that is provided by statute or contract. If that is somehow incorrect, and there is some legal basis of the right that you claim with respect to the "public routing infrastructure", then it would good to share the relevant references with this community. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From matthew at matthew.at Mon Jun 1 17:07:10 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:07:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <556CC97E.8090808@matthew.at> On 6/1/2015 2:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran wrote: >> If you provide an actual citation of such a finding, >> it should be fairly easy to find the language to that effect in the judgement. > Let me put this another way: If I were to find an ISP willing to let > me announce 199.43.0.0/24, how long do you think it would take ARIN > counsel to figure out what to sue us for? If ARIN counsel had drafted a LOA allowing you to announce 199.43.0.0/24, not only would it be easy to find an ISP willing to let you announce it, you'd probably also find that ARIN wouldn't bother suing you (and certainly wouldn't win). *Even though* the registry doesn't show that it is "yours" to announce. That's the case we're discussing. Matthew From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 17:11:06 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:11:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4A924F4C-E889-4D75-9567-FAC6CEEF9ECF@arin.net> On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran wrote: >> If you provide an actual citation of such a finding, >> it should be fairly easy to find the language to that effect in the judgement. > > Let me put this another way: If I were to find an ISP willing to let > me announce 199.43.0.0/24, how long do you think it would take ARIN > counsel to figure out what to sue us for? Bill - It?s quite possible that there are already parties announcing that block in locations throughout the Internet, but the vast majority of ISPs seem to follow the routing information from ARIN's peering and contracted transit providers. Ultimately, these matters are resolved based on mutual cooperation and a shared fabric of trust; while the registry may be an important common element of that fabric, that is still not the same thing as a legal right against the parties who participate. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 17:19:06 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:19:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556CC8EB.4030907@matthew.at> References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> <556CC8EB.4030907@matthew.at> Message-ID: <0C7A30C0-A7BA-4048-98E6-36FDFE67DD6D@arin.net> On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > But in the case at hand, holder X writes a letter to non-holder Y saying "sure, I'm ok with you advertising these addresses for the next year" > > If holder X then sues non-holder Y and presents the ARIN registration as evidence, that letter isn't going to make this a "cookie-cutter violation" any more. And further, in the case at hand, holder X *doesn't* sue non-holder Y... instead a bunch of relying parties, including law enforcement, just can't see who really has the legal use of the addresses, because ARIN refused to update their records because some arbitrary policies weren't followed. Matthew - The example you cite isn?t actually a transfer; the address holder ?X? still controls the address block in the registry. It?s not even clear that the address holder ?X? intends to ever transfer the address block. Law enforcement will inquire to ?X" address holder regarding various matters, but presumably handling such remains their obligation since they have opted not to transfer the block to party ?Y? in accordance with community developed policy. You may not like the registry policies, but they are supported by the community which makes use of the registry and hence come along with benefits of unique identifiers from the registry. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 17:23:49 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:23:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556CC97E.8090808@matthew.at> References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> <556CC97E.8090808@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/1/2015 2:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> If you provide an actual citation of such a finding, >>> it should be fairly easy to find the language to that effect in the >>> judgement. >> >> Let me put this another way: If I were to find an ISP willing to let >> me announce 199.43.0.0/24, how long do you think it would take ARIN >> counsel to figure out what to sue us for? > > > If ARIN counsel had drafted a LOA allowing you to announce 199.43.0.0/24, > not only would it be easy to find an ISP willing to let you announce it, > you'd probably also find that ARIN wouldn't bother suing you (and certainly > wouldn't win). *Even though* the registry doesn't show that it is "yours" to > announce. That's the case we're discussing. But I do have a letter of authorization. It's from the Agricultural Research Institute Nonentity but it only says ARIN on the letterhead. ;) -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 17:34:02 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:34:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <4A924F4C-E889-4D75-9567-FAC6CEEF9ECF@arin.net> References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> <4A924F4C-E889-4D75-9567-FAC6CEEF9ECF@arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:11 PM, John Curran wrote: > Ultimately, these matters are resolved based on mutual cooperation > and a shared fabric of trust; while the registry may be an important > common element of that fabric, that is still not the same thing as a > legal right against the parties who participate. Discuss. With. ARIN. Counsel. Because you're plain wrong. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bcornett at servlet.com Mon Jun 1 17:39:51 2015 From: bcornett at servlet.com (Bruce Cornett) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:39:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <4A924F4C-E889-4D75-9567-FAC6CEEF9ECF@arin.net> References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> <4A924F4C-E889-4D75-9567-FAC6CEEF9ECF@arin.net> Message-ID: <556CD127.1030602@servlet.com> All We're a small operation, but we have had several announcement events that seem to bear on the matter. We bought a small company some years ago and once we sorted everything out, we found the previous owner had simply laid claim to the a /21 that was adjacent to their proper allocation. All the upstreams took the routes. And they had clients on it - one that had an entire /24 numbered out into wireless APs. It was a real effort to clean up. Several years ago we started getting "site not found" complaints from some clients on the east coast. Turns out that someone in Philadelphia was announcing a /23 from our block. It was an easy resolution handled by phone and mail. But it could have required a lot of effort - i.e. time and money, and he could have damaged the reputation of the block. Two years ago we found a that someone continued to announce one of our blocks years after we parted ways. What made this particularly troublesome was that we both shared an upstream provider and they were somehow accepting both announcements. Fortunately this was caught by chance just prior to going live and we sorted it out. All of these problems were in the States so that if resolutions were not easily forthcoming, we could at least use the courts if need be. Recently we started announcing a newly assigned block for a client. Two of the upstreams accepted the announcements based on information found at ARIN - i.e. the Origin AS. Another required us to have an entry in ARINs routing registry. These anecdotes do suggest that this is a weak spot and one that might be exploited. Bruce C From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 17:52:06 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:52:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> <4A924F4C-E889-4D75-9567-FAC6CEEF9ECF@arin.net> Message-ID: <102AA6A0-6483-44E1-B8C2-F8328D961EC6@arin.net> On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:34 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:11 PM, John Curran wrote: >> Ultimately, these matters are resolved based on mutual cooperation >> and a shared fabric of trust; while the registry may be an important >> common element of that fabric, that is still not the same thing as a >> legal right against the parties who participate. > > Discuss. With. ARIN. Counsel. Because you're plain wrong. Bill - This has already been done, with several different attorneys over the course of many years. Please feel free to provide any available references to support your interesting perspective, and I will undertake the task again with your information in hand. (Mind you, it would be trivial to create the rights you suggest via ARIN?s registry service agreement and those customers who participate in the "routing infrastructure on the public Internet? ? in theory, that would be no different that the rights you assert registrants already have, but the difference between theory and practice is likely to be quite large, i.e. there would likely be a number of service providers unwilling to accept such a legal obligation, despite their faithful adherence to the registry contents for determining bona fides for routing.) Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 1 18:10:43 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:10:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <102AA6A0-6483-44E1-B8C2-F8328D961EC6@arin.net> References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> <4A924F4C-E889-4D75-9567-FAC6CEEF9ECF@arin.net> <102AA6A0-6483-44E1-B8C2-F8328D961EC6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:52 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:34 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> Discuss. With. ARIN. Counsel. Because you're plain wrong. > > This has already been done, with several different attorneys over the > course of many years. Then you haven't asked the right questions. Start with the tortious interference example I drew out for you and see what counsel has to say. If he tells you someone whose route is highjacked has no legal recourse against the highjacker in a multi-billion dollar industry that depends on routing... the law doesn't leave gaping voids like that John. It just doesn't. And you don't have the counter-example in your grasp. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 18:33:03 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:33:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <41E926E1-79E7-4051-B2EC-481980104A51@matthew.at> <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9@corp.arin.net> <4A924F4C-E889-4D75-9567-FAC6CEEF9ECF@arin.net> <102AA6A0-6483-44E1-B8C2-F8328D961EC6@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2015, at 6:10 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:52 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:34 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> Discuss. With. ARIN. Counsel. Because you're plain wrong. >> >> This has already been done, with several different attorneys over the >> course of many years. > > Then you haven't asked the right questions. Start with the tortious > interference example I drew out for you and see what counsel has to > say. If he tells you someone whose route is highjacked has no legal > recourse against the highjacker in a multi-billion dollar industry > that depends on routing... the law doesn't leave gaping voids like > that John. It just doesn't. And you don't have the counter-example in > your grasp. Bill - It?s quite possible that there are options for legal recourse against a party which routes an address block in a manner not authorized by the block holder, but that would not be the result of any right to the routing table that the address holder has, but instead the result of a violation of an actual statute or violation of contractual provisions between service providers and their peers and/or customers. (None of which equates to "a lawful right to exclude anyone else from using his ARIN-registered IP address on the public Internet.?) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jschiller at google.com Mon Jun 1 19:14:01 2015 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:14:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) In-Reply-To: <8A9F435E-20BF-4E90-9141-99A7D93FC6EE@delong.com> References: <5564C245.7050207@arin.net> <5564D673.7080106@rollernet.us> <6FDFDCBB-7019-4A42-9A62-CA4BBABCE267@corp.arin.net> <4023727F-EF91-4BED-A2EC-E00CFA55707E@delong.com> <8A9F435E-20BF-4E90-9141-99A7D93FC6EE@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen, We didn't need a global policy to establish a bilateral inter RIR transfer policy with APNIC. Per ARIN policy "APNIC only requires a compatible needs based distribution mechanism". Why not per ARIN policy, you can transfer inside your 24 month window, ONLY IF, the org is a wholly owned subsidiary, and if the org is in an RIR region whose policy will prevent the transfer of addresses for at least the remainder of the 24 month term. __Jason On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > If it were enforceable, it would address my concern. > > The problem is that we are then looking to have an ARIN contract enjoin an > action by the organization in another RIR which I am not sure would give us > any recourse whatsoever were that contract to be violated. > > That?s why I didn?t propose language? I don?t think the issue in question > can be unilaterally addressed, so I think we should accept that and those > that are interested can begin work on a globally coordinated policy if they > desire to do so. > > We?ve already seen that attempting to unilaterally influence minimum > policy requirements on other regions is unlikely to work. Witness RIPEs > recent ?workaround? to ?compatible needs basis?. I am not especially > interested in expanding this problem space. > > Owen > > On May 29, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Jason Schiller wrote: > > Owen, > > So does this text cover your proposal then? > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 > Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) > > Date: 26 May 2015 > > Problem Statement: > > Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the > transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan > are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 > months of receipt. > > Policy statement: > > Replace 8.4, bullet 4, to read: > > "> Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a > transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources > from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the approval of a transfer > request. > - This restriction does not include M&A transfers. > - This restriction does not include a transfer to a wholly owned > subsidiary out side of the ARIN service region > if the recipient org will be required to not transfer any IP space > for the remaining balance of 12 month window." > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On May 28, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> How does that differ from the policy text I sent? >> >> Can you send an idea of policy text? >> >> I thought the text I sent said that an ARIN org can transfer IPs out to >> another wholely owned subsidiary in another RIR region if they have been >> the recipient of transfer in less that 12 months IF the recipient org will >> be required (read by recipient's RIR policy) to hold the transfered >> resource for the balance of the 12 months. >> >> Your proposal allows substitution. >> >> ARIN->Other RIR space A >> Space B Other RIR-> Money/etc. >> >> I want to see substitution transfers prohibited. >> >> Owen >> >> ___Jason >> On May 28, 2015 8:31 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >> >>> Or simply not permit it under ARIN policy until such exists. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> > On May 28, 2015, at 1:49 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> > >>> > On May 27, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >> >>> >> My suggestion is that I don't mind (virtually) unrestricted moves of >>> addresses to different regions staying with the same organization. However, >>> if we are to allow that, I want us to find a way that you can't merely use >>> that as a way to move addresses out of flip protection to then flip them to >>> another organization via an RIR with a less restrictive transfer policy. >>> >> >>> >> So... If you transfer addresses to another region, keeping them in >>> the same organization, no penalty. However, you are not allowed to >>> subsequently transfer them (or other addresses in that region) to an >>> external party for at least 12 months. >>> > >>> > That second portion that you seek would affect the ongoing operation of >>> > another RIR, i.e. it requires them having some explicit policy to that >>> effect. >>> > >>> > To obtain the result you seek, we either need globally coordinated >>> transfer >>> > policy in this area, or you need to make the inter-RIR transfer policy >>> explicit >>> > in this regard in determination of compatibility. >>> > >>> > /John >>> > >>> > John Curran >>> > President and CEO >>> > ARIN >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 > > > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 1 19:30:47 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:30:47 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> Message-ID: John, > On Jun 1, 2015, at 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: >> If organization A purchases a block of addresses from organization B _and is able to convince their ISP(s) to route that block of addresses_, it would seem the "rights" to that address block have been transferred from A to B, regardless of ARIN's position on the matter (they aren't a party to the transaction). > > Which rights do you refer to above? The right to present a block of addresses with certain uniqueness assurances to one or more ISP(s) for routing. > You?re implying a "right to have an address block routed?, Obviously not. The "right" to present a block of addresses to one or more ISP(s) does _not_ imply a "right to have an address block routed", since as you note: > but we know that parties make such decisions based on many business criteria, and registration status of an address block is only one factor. Indeed, so I'm left to wonder why you'd suggest I'd be implying otherwise. > If you believe that there is some "right to route? contained in the Internet numbers registry, As you're well aware, I do not believe this. > address holders gain uniqueness from the Internet numbers registry, In the scenario I presented, the uniqueness of the address block transferred to organization B is _not_ lost. Assuming the 'transfer' occurred outside of ARIN policy, what is lost is the correct attribution of that address space. This doesn't strike me as particularly good stewardship. > are you proposing changing this so that address block holders are credited with some > specific rights that affect routing, and that ISPs agree to be bound by same? Seriously, John? I don't really have time to waste on this sort of straw man. I'll ask again (since you conveniently ignored the question): >> Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management >> of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information >> when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. >> In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American _Registry_ >> for Internet Numbers again? In your earlier message, you appear to be asserting that abiding by ARIN policies is a requirement for a 'transfer' to occur. This strikes me as a very dangerous (not to mention hubristic) assumption. Transfers will and do occur, regardless of ARIN policies. The only thing ARIN can do is choose to acknowledge or ignore those transfers. Failure to acknowledge transfers is detrimental to the accuracy of the registry. I strongly believe the purpose of the registry system is to act as a registry to accurately reflect the correct attribution of use of address space. If ARIN is not going to perform this function, can you suggest some entity that will? Thanks, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 19:48:27 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 23:48:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2015, at 7:30 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > I'll ask again (since you conveniently ignored the question): > >>> Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management >>> of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information >>> when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. >>> In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American _Registry_ >>> for Internet Numbers again? > > In your earlier message, you appear to be asserting that abiding by ARIN policies is a requirement for a 'transfer' to occur. This strikes me as a very dangerous (not to mention hubristic) assumption. Transfers will and do occur, regardless of ARIN policies. The only thing ARIN can do is choose to acknowledge or ignore those transfers. Failure to acknowledge transfers is detrimental to the accuracy of the registry. I strongly believe the purpose of the registry system is to act as a registry to accurately reflect the correct attribution of use of address space. If ARIN is not going to perform this function, can you suggest some entity that will? David - Your confusion is likely over what represents ?correct attribution? - if ARIN does not operate the registry according to the policies set by those who use it, then there is no doubt that the contents are not correct. If ARIN operates the registry as set by the community, and some in the community wish to transfer contrary to the existing policies, then ARIN is obligated to not allow a transfer since we serve the registry community. One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn?t have policies that inhibit transfers (I?ll refrain from participating in that, since I serve the community, not develop policy) but I don?t think you?re actually advocating that ARIN ignore community policy in the operation of the registry? Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From athompso at athompso.net Mon Jun 1 20:05:01 2015 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 19:05:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> Message-ID: John, you've used language to obfuscate David's point, which is that ARIN does not *allow* *transfers* of IP address space between entities. ARIN does set out policies that participating members must abide by, but since a) we have evidence that transfer market participants exist who basically ignore ARIN entirely, b) these participants do engage in meaningful transfer of IP resources, and c) ARIN has (AFAIK) no legal mandate to pursue these non-participating transferring entities, then ARIN cannot logically claim to be allowing or denying transfers. ARIN does choose to allow or disallow transfers to happen inside its policy framework, but that's not the same thing as allowing or denying the substantive transfer in the first place. AFAICT, IANAL. -Adam On June 1, 2015 6:48:27 PM CDT, John Curran wrote: >On Jun 1, 2015, at 7:30 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> >> I'll ask again (since you conveniently ignored the question): >> >>>> Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate >management >>>> of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration >information >>>> when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source >address. >>>> In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American >_Registry_ >>>> for Internet Numbers again? >> >> In your earlier message, you appear to be asserting that abiding by >ARIN policies is a requirement for a 'transfer' to occur. This strikes >me as a very dangerous (not to mention hubristic) assumption. >Transfers will and do occur, regardless of ARIN policies. The only >thing ARIN can do is choose to acknowledge or ignore those transfers. >Failure to acknowledge transfers is detrimental to the accuracy of the >registry. I strongly believe the purpose of the registry system is to >act as a registry to accurately reflect the correct attribution of use >of address space. If ARIN is not going to perform this function, can >you suggest some entity that will? > >David - > >Your confusion is likely over what represents ?correct attribution? - >if ARIN does not >operate the registry according to the policies set by those who use it, >then there is >no doubt that the contents are not correct. If ARIN operates the >registry as set by >the community, and some in the community wish to transfer contrary to >the existing >policies, then ARIN is obligated to not allow a transfer since we serve >the registry > community. > >One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn?t have policies that >inhibit transfers >(I?ll refrain from participating in that, since I serve the community, >not develop policy) >but I don?t think you?re actually advocating that ARIN ignore community >policy in the >operation of the registry? Could you please clarify if that is what >you are suggesting? > >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. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rockymm8 at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 20:35:52 2015 From: rockymm8 at gmail.com (Rocky) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:35:52 +0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98F691C5B86C4311B9A80FFE254A8984@gmail.com> Hi William, Answers to your questions about CNNIC rules. It is illegal for transferring CNNIC IPv4 out of China mainland and CNNIC will not allow Microsoft to transfer its IPs in CNNIC accounts out of China mainland. Furthermore, currently the new Government rules also does not allow APNIC IPv4 whose registration location is CN ( China mainland) to be transferred out of China mainland. Before we start to discuss about this 2015-02, your guys should know that Microsoft?s local Chinese business partner for its Azure is 21vianet and Amazon?s local business partner is Chinanetcenter (???. You can easily to do the goggle search to find out. This is what Microsoft had done: Microsoft had paid expensive money to have its purchased IPs to be transferred into China; Meanwhile apply for plenty of free IPs from ARIN free pools ( your guys can check ARIN database to find out ). ipv4|167.189.0.0/16|TNT Australia Pty Ltd|AU|APNIC|19930916|China Internet Network Information Center/CHINA-21VIANET|CN|APNIC|20140114 Two CNNIC accounts ( where holding most of 21vianet?s IPs addresses) controlled by 21Vianet ( Chinese name: ???? Listed in the US stock market and they also have several other CNNIC accounts too, where Xiaomi becomes one of its main shareholders now) are: CHINA-21VIANET CHINA-ABITCOOL ipv4|167.220.224.0/19|American Registry for Internet Numbers/MOPL|AP|ARIN|20140109|Microsoft Singapore Pte. Ltd.|SG|APNIC|20140408 ipv4|139.217.0.0/16|Dodo Australia|AU|APNIC|20110308|Microsoft Singapore Pte. Ltd.|SG|APNIC|20140428 ipv4|139.219.0.0/16|Dodo Australia|AU|APNIC|20110308|Microsoft Singapore Pte. Ltd.|SG|APNIC|20140428 ipv4|139.217.0.0/16|Microsoft Singapore Pte. Ltd.|SG|APNIC|20110308|China Internet Network Information Center/MCCL-CHN|CN|APNIC|20140609 ipv4|139.219.0.0/16|Microsoft Singapore Pte. Ltd.|SG|APNIC|20110308|China Internet Network Information Center/MCCL-CHN|CN|APNIC|20140609 Compared with what Amazon had done: Amazon had bought more IPs than Microsoft. nearly a /8 from Merck and plenty from Dupont and other sources and their deal?s unit price is cheaper than Microsoft?s, cos of their large purchase amount. ipv4|54.222.0.0/15|American Registry for Internet Numbers/MERCK2|AP|ARIN|19920317|Amazon Connection Technology Services (Beijing) Co., LTD|CN|APNIC|20130408 ipv4|54.222.0.0/15|Amazon Connection Technology Services (Beijing) Co., LTD|CN|APNIC|19920317|China Internet Network Information Center/CHINANETCENTER|CN|APNIC|20140219 Considering the anti-flip rules in the ARIN transfer policy: Amazon abides by the ARIN policy and transfer parts of purchased IPs into China. However,Microsoft tries to transfer its free applied IPs from ARIN free pools into China. Both of those giants have taken the advantage of power,money and size to acquire lots of free IPs from ARIN free pools where we can see the smaller members suffer quite a lot and even hard to acquire a /24. Compared with Amazon, Microsoft tries to find out a way to transfer the free ARIN IPs out of ARIN into China. Apparently, Microsoft has taken advantage of the ARIN policy where they tell untruthful information to ARIN for apply for free IPs to be used in ARIN then several months later they tries to transfer the Ips out of ARIN by using excuses like: plans changes etc. David like the Elvis who used to work in RIRs know the policy better than anyone else in the community and I think david is in a hurry to achieve something to verify that his is worthy of the money paid by Microsoft to hire him to do his jobs( getting as many free IPs as possible for Microsoft). Furthermore more info about 21vianet. Compared with what 21vianet had done: 21vianet knows that its business partner Microsoft had paid expensive money to buy that 167.189.0.0/16 and they knows the internal Chinese IP market is quite lot cheaper than the ARIN market, So they bought quite lots of cheaper IPs from Seehu. 118.195.0.0/17; 59.191.0.0/17; 118.30.0.0/16; 123.61.0.0/16 etc has been transferred from seehu to 21vianet on Feb 2014. Your guys cannot see this transfer in the APNIC public transfer log due to three reasons: 1. CNNIC does lots of off-book transfers ( if you dig more, you will find who are the beneficial parties?) 2. Seehu told APNIC this was a M/A transfer. However, this is not truth and the truth is that this is a normal transfer where Seehu sold its leased IPs for profit. 3. APNIC does not list M/A transfer in its public transfer log. On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 3:33 AM, arin-ppml-request at arin.net wrote: > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > arin-ppml at arin.net (mailto: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 (mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net) > > You can reach the person managing the list at > arin-ppml-owner at arin.net (mailto: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-PPML 2015-2 (William Herrin) > 2. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (David Huberman) > 3. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (John Curran) > 4. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (David Huberman) > 5. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (John Curran) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:50:05 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: Matthew Kaufman > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net (mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net)" , Rudolph Daniel > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > Anti-flip shouldn't matter the moment there's no free pool left to allocate > > from. > > > > > Hi Matthew, > > That's only true if everybody is playing by the same rules. I asked, > but I still haven't heard someone explain the CNNIC rules and process > that facilitate IPv4 addresses transferring out of China and over to > North America. Reciprocity is something of a requirement for free > trade. > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:41 AM, John Curran wrote: > > On May 31, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > > I will note that there's really no stopping addresses from being used anywhere by anyone? > > > > > > That is correct; the transfers are of rights applicable to specific address blocks in the > > Internet Numbers Registry system - contrary to the assertions of some, these are not > > rights to be in anyone?s routers or in the routing table, etc. > > > > > Hi John, > > That duplicitous statement has been bantered about since the beginning > of the RIRs. The exact statement is technically accurate but falls > well short of truthful. It implies a total disconnect between > registration and routing which is patently false. > > A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the > registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within > the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. That's what the > address registries and registrations are for. And sufficient torts in > the common law back it up. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com (mailto:herrin at dirtside.com) bill at herrin.us (mailto:bill at herrin.us) > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:00:02 +0000 > From: David Huberman > To: William Herrin , Matthew Kaufman > > Cc: Rudolph Daniel , "arin-ppml at arin.net (mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net)" > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > That's only true if everybody is playing by the same rules. I asked, but I still > > haven't heard someone explain the CNNIC rules and process that facilitate > > IPv4 addresses transferring out of China and over to North America. > > Reciprocity is something of a requirement for free trade. > > > > > I didn't see this question. Our experience has been we can move space from CNNIC to APNIC, and then APNIC has reciprocity with ARIN. So CNNIC has reciprocity with ARIN via APNIC (just like ARIN to CNNIC has to first go through APNIC). > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:16:40 +0000 > From: John Curran > To: Matthew Kaufman > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net (mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net)" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:28 PM, John Curran > wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: > ... > I don't believe that ARIN or any other registry has any power to prevent me from using any integers I want in my own routers and network. > > Matthew > > I fully agree, but you might want to compare notes with David, as he seems to have > created rights to address blocks listed within routing tables, rather than address > holders having rights to address block entries in the Internet Numbers Registry? > > For avoidance of doubt about the rights referenced above, both the RSA and LRSA > make clear that address holders have the following rights - > > "ARIN shall (i) provide the Services to Holder in accordance with the Service Terms and (ii) grant to Holder the following specified rights: > (1) The exclusive right to be the registrant of the Included Number Resources within the ARIN database; > (2) The right to use the Included Number Resources within the ARIN database; and > (3) The right to transfer the registration of the Included Number Resources pursuant to the Policies.? > > There?s no doubt that ARIN can provide to these rights to the address holder, but it?s worth > noting that the specified 'right to use? is clearly within respect to ARIN database, not any > right that is predicated upon (or directly applicable to) the routing tables of ISPs globally. > > The Internet number registry system is joint activity that provides benefits for those who > voluntarily participate therein - you?re not obligated in the least to make use of it, you can > include any IP address block you want in your routing tables, but don?t be surprised if others > expect you to participate in the system. A nice slide deck that summarizes this voluntary > nature is here: http://www.ptc.org/ptc14/images/papers/upload/Presentation_TS9_ConradDavid.pdf > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:21:13 +0000 > From: David Huberman > To: David Huberman , William Herrin > , Matthew Kaufman > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net (mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net)" , Rudolph Daniel > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I would like to retract this statement I made. I was challenged off-list. I went and looked through our history, and I appear to be mistaken. We did not move space out of CNNIC. And apparently, there is no reciprocity -- CNNIC cannot be moved to APNIC. > > Apologies for the errant statement. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > > Behalf Of David Huberman > > Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 12:00 PM > > To: William Herrin; Matthew Kaufman > > Cc: Rudolph Daniel; arin-ppml at arin.net (mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net) > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > > > > > That's only true if everybody is playing by the same rules. I asked, > > > but I still haven't heard someone explain the CNNIC rules and process > > > that facilitate > > > IPv4 addresses transferring out of China and over to North America. > > > Reciprocity is something of a requirement for free trade. > > > > > > > > > I didn't see this question. Our experience has been we can move space from > > CNNIC to APNIC, and then APNIC has reciprocity with ARIN. So CNNIC has > > reciprocity with ARIN via APNIC (just like ARIN to CNNIC has to first go > > through APNIC). > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net (mailto: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 (mailto:info at arin.net) if you experience any issues. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:33:00 +0000 > From: John Curran > To: BIll Herrin > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net (mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net)" , Rudolph Daniel > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > Message-ID: <7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9 at corp.arin.net (mailto:7473364A-BB26-4A1A-A9CB-943FC5746AC9 at corp.arin.net)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin > wrote: > ... > A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the > registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within > the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. > > Bill - > > if you think that there?s a legal obligation on the ISPs to follow the registry, > then please provide a citation... As I noted, we could indeed create such > an obligation as part of the registry services agreement, but it is rather > unclear why that would be desirable (and would significantly change the > voluntary cooperative nature of the system.) > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > ARIN-PPML at arin.net (mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net) > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 4 > ***************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 1 21:05:48 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 01:05:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:05 PM, Adam Thompson wrote: > > John, you've used language to obfuscate David's point, which is that ARIN does not *allow* *transfers* of IP address space between entities. ARIN does allow transfers of address space, so long as the transfers are in accordance with community-developed policy. > ARIN does set out policies that participating members must abide by, Actually, the ARIN community develops such policies, and they are used in the administration of all address blocks in the registry. > but since a) we have evidence that transfer market participants exist who basically ignore ARIN entirely, So, this probably comes down to what you consider an ?IP address block? - ARIN considers an IP address block to be an entry in the Internet Numbers Registry. i.e. assigning an address block is associating an entity with one of the address blocks in this specific registry. The purpose of the registry is to provide unique values, and Note that there have been other IP address registries which assigned the 32-bit address space among their own community, e.g. Automotive Network Exchange operated a registry which issued unique IP address blocks but distinct from the IP Numbers registry run by the RIR community. It?s pretty easy to explain when one party transfers its rights to an address block entry in the registry to another party. What do you think is being transferred if not the entry in the IP numbers registry? it?s likely not the sale of textual representation and it?s not sale of routing rights in every ISP?s tables, so what is being transferred legally in such cases? > ARIN does choose to allow or disallow transfers to happen inside its policy framework, but that's not the same thing as allowing or denying the substantive transfer in the first place. You probably need to elaborate on what is being transferred, since the address block in the Internet numbers registry hasn?t changed, and that party retains the ability to update or transfer the address block to other parties. Again, what does the ?buyer? think they?ve obtained, particularly when the community that follows the registry indicates that the transfer is not valid? > b) these participants do engage in meaningful transfer of IP resources, Really? I?ll observe that we have been seeing _hundreds_ of IP address block transfers, and even those who object to the community-set transfer policies have been bringing in their transfers for approval by ARIN. We do have folks who are doing things that are not transfers (e.g. option of future transfers, leasing) which goes on outside of ARIN, but that is because those don?t affect the party with the permanent rights to the address block in the registry. > and c) ARIN has (AFAIK) no legal mandate to pursue these non-participating transferring entities, then ARIN cannot logically claim to be allowing or denying transfers. There?s nothing to pursue, since the legal rights to the address block in the registry remain unchanged. If someone thinks they someone obtained such rights without doing a transfer via the registry, they?re going to be in a very interesting situation when legally trying to pursue the result. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 2 05:53:37 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:53:37 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) In-Reply-To: References: <5564C245.7050207@arin.net> <5564D673.7080106@rollernet.us> <6FDFDCBB-7019-4A42-9A62-CA4BBABCE267@corp.arin.net> <4023727F-EF91-4BED-A2EC-E00CFA55707E@delong.com> <8A9F435E-20BF-4E90-9141-99A7D93FC6EE@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Jun 2, 2015, at 12:14 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > > Owen, > > We didn't need a global policy to establish a bilateral inter RIR transfer policy with APNIC. Per ARIN policy "APNIC only requires a compatible needs based distribution mechanism?. Because we have the anti-flip language that this proposal seeks to eliminate. > Why not per ARIN policy, you can transfer inside your 24 month window, ONLY IF, the org is a wholly owned subsidiary, and if the org is in an RIR region whose policy will prevent the transfer of addresses for at least the remainder of the 24 month term. I could live with that. Owen > > __Jason > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > If it were enforceable, it would address my concern. > > The problem is that we are then looking to have an ARIN contract enjoin an action by the organization in another RIR which I am not sure would give us any recourse whatsoever were that contract to be violated. > > That?s why I didn?t propose language? I don?t think the issue in question can be unilaterally addressed, so I think we should accept that and those that are interested can begin work on a globally coordinated policy if they desire to do so. > > We?ve already seen that attempting to unilaterally influence minimum policy requirements on other regions is unlikely to work. Witness RIPEs recent ?workaround? to ?compatible needs basis?. I am not especially interested in expanding this problem space. > > Owen > >> On May 29, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Jason Schiller > wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> So does this text cover your proposal then? >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 >> Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) >> >> Date: 26 May 2015 >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the >> transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan >> are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12 >> months of receipt. >> >> Policy statement: >> >> Replace 8.4, bullet 4, to read: >> >> "> Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a >> transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources >> from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the approval of a transfer >> request. >> - This restriction does not include M&A transfers. >> - This restriction does not include a transfer to a wholly owned >> subsidiary out side of the ARIN service region >> if the recipient org will be required to not transfer any IP space >> for the remaining balance of 12 month window." >> >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >>> On May 28, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Jason Schiller > wrote: >>> >>> Owen, >>> >>> How does that differ from the policy text I sent? >>> >>> Can you send an idea of policy text? >>> >>> I thought the text I sent said that an ARIN org can transfer IPs out to another wholely owned subsidiary in another RIR region if they have been the recipient of transfer in less that 12 months IF the recipient org will be required (read by recipient's RIR policy) to hold the transfered resource for the balance of the 12 months. >>> >>> >> Your proposal allows substitution. >> >> ARIN->Other RIR space A >> Space B Other RIR-> Money/etc. >> >> I want to see substitution transfers prohibited. >> >> Owen >> >>> ___Jason >>> >>> On May 28, 2015 8:31 AM, "Owen DeLong" > wrote: >>> Or simply not permit it under ARIN policy until such exists. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> > On May 28, 2015, at 1:49 PM, John Curran > wrote: >>> > >>> > On May 27, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> My suggestion is that I don't mind (virtually) unrestricted moves of addresses to different regions staying with the same organization. However, if we are to allow that, I want us to find a way that you can't merely use that as a way to move addresses out of flip protection to then flip them to another organization via an RIR with a less restrictive transfer policy. >>> >> >>> >> So... If you transfer addresses to another region, keeping them in the same organization, no penalty. However, you are not allowed to subsequently transfer them (or other addresses in that region) to an external party for at least 12 months. >>> > >>> > That second portion that you seek would affect the ongoing operation of >>> > another RIR, i.e. it requires them having some explicit policy to that effect. >>> > >>> > To obtain the result you seek, we either need globally coordinated transfer >>> > policy in this area, or you need to make the inter-RIR transfer policy explicit >>> > in this regard in determination of compatibility. >>> > >>> > /John >>> > >>> > John Curran >>> > President and CEO >>> > ARIN >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________ >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com |571-266-0006 >> > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com |571-266-0006 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 2 05:58:35 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:58:35 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <10f2e175db2f4ad7b734974290b2b325@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <10f2e175db2f4ad7b734974290b2b325@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <57E38EE9-2C1E-411E-91DB-3C71300588AA@delong.com> > On Jun 1, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > As stated? The concern is the potential for A->B->Money lather, rinse, repeat. > > If people abuse the policy ARIN has the leverage to affect the abusers, and that should be enough. No need for a global policy. > > ARIN has no leverage once the resources have left the ARIN region, so your argument here is specious at best. > > MM: Obviously false. ARIN notes the violation of policy and doesn?t approve the next transfer request from that entity. That would make your ?abuse? a very short-term and costly strategy. This assumes several facts not in evidence. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 2 09:04:49 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:04:49 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> Message-ID: <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> John, On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran wrote: > Your confusion is likely over what represents ?correct attribution? - if ARIN does not > operate the registry according to the policies set by those who use it, In your view, who uses "the registry"? Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of "the registry"? > One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn?t have policies that inhibit transfers One could, but I am not. I don't care if "the ARIN community" comes up with a policy defining the sky to be green. There are numerous mechanisms by which the ARIN community can enforce policy such as a prohibition against (particular) transfers: refuse to delegate reverse DNS, refuse to update the ARIN routing registry, imbed notifications of policy violations in registration records, call the out-of-policy transferees names, etc. None of these defeat the very reason for the existence of the registry. Refusing to update the registration database does. > but I don?t think you?re actually advocating that ARIN ignore community policy in the > operation of the registry? The "community" that makes use of the registry is larger than "ARIN". If the subset of the community that participates in the definition of ARIN policy decided to create a policy that effectively destroyed the registration database, yes, I would definitely advocate ARIN, the corporate entity (or, more specifically, the ARIN board), ignore that policy. I believe the board would actually have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. I believe failure to maintain an accurate registration database (defined to be one that matches actual reality, not one that corresponds to what an infinitesimal subset of the Internet community thinks might be a good idea on any particular day) is a violation of the trust Jon Postel and the Internet community as a whole has placed upon ARIN when ARIN was granted the monopoly for registry services for the ARIN service region. > Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting? That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7. One more time: >> Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management >> of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information >> when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. >> In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American _Registry_ >> for Internet Numbers again? Your continued attempts to dodge this question is getting depressing. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 2 10:35:47 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:35:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> , <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad > wrote: John, On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran > wrote: Your confusion is likely over what represents ?correct attribution? - if ARIN does not operate the registry according to the policies set by those who use it, In your view, who uses "the registry"? Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of "the registry"? All of the above parties (and all of them can participate in defining the registry policy) One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn?t have policies that inhibit transfers One could, but I am not. I don't care if "the ARIN community" comes up with a policy defining the sky to be green. There are numerous mechanisms by which the ARIN community can enforce policy such as a prohibition against (particular) transfers: refuse to delegate reverse DNS, refuse to update the ARIN routing registry, imbed notifications of policy violations in registration records, call the out-of-policy transferees names, etc. None of these defeat the very reason for the existence of the registry. Refusing to update the registration database does. David - you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred other than rights to the registry entry itself; ie ARIN is "refusing to update the registration database", as if it were a registration of some independent item - an automobile, for example. What exactly are the IP address blocks if not the registry entry that was created when same is assigned? It is necessary to address this if you are to claim of any accuracy resulting from ARIN following community policy. but I don?t think you?re actually advocating that ARIN ignore community policy in the operation of the registry? The "community" that makes use of the registry is larger than "ARIN". If the subset of the community that participates in the definition of ARIN policy decided to create a policy that effectively destroyed the registration database, yes, I would definitely advocate ARIN, the corporate entity (or, more specifically, the ARIN board), ignore that policy. I believe the board would actually have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. I believe failure to maintain an accurate registration database (defined to be one that matches actual reality, not one that corresponds to what an infinitesimal subset of the Internet community thinks might be a good idea on any particular day) is a violation of the trust Jon Postel and the Internet community as a whole has placed upon ARIN when ARIN was granted the monopoly for registry services for the ARIN service region. Again, this assertion is based on your interesting interpretation that ARIN should update the register contrary to policy. With respect to Jon and the time of ARIN's formation, it is fairly clear that the current policies regarding need-based transfer would align quite well with his expectations, especially since the transfer policy at the time, as stated in RFC 2050, was such: "7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR." Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting? That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7. Done. You have yet to explain how and what is actual transferred that differs from the rights to the entry in the IP registry. If there is something else transferred (and thus discrepancy if the registry is not updated), please elucidate. If indeed the IP address block is one and the same with the rights to entry in the registry, there is no inconsistency at all. One more time: Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American _Registry_ for Internet Numbers again? Your continued attempts to dodge this question is getting depressing. The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you _start_ such a process, noting that ISP's/LIRs delegate blocks to organizations, and that the real world has things like LOA's that are often used, etc. None of this has changed - you still start the process with the registry, and need to pursue to find the operational contact you seek. ARIN following its community policy doesn't change this in the least, and you probably are aware of this reality existed long before any transfer market. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From athompso at athompso.net Tue Jun 2 11:11:27 2015 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:11:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> , <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Is there anything preventing people from, instead of transferring IP addresses, negotiating 99-year IRUs or some similar type of lease? That seems like it could be a loophole in the policies... If all it takes is converting from an end-user to an ISP so that the block can be reassigned, would that be in full compliance with the existing NRPM? -Adam -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 2 11:33:09 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:33:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> , <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> , Message-ID: On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Adam Thompson wrote: > > Is there anything preventing people from, instead of transferring IP addresses, negotiating 99-year IRUs or some similar type of lease? That seems like it could be a loophole in the policies... If all it takes is converting from an end-user to an ISP so that the block can be reassigned, would that be in full compliance with the existing NRPM? Adam - There is little applicable policy with respect to the usage of IP address blocks, i.e. it is not clear that such leasing is (or should be) disallowed. This is a good reason for the community to think carefully about restrictions on transfers - as noted earlier by others, restrictions on transfers often lead to workarounds via creative usage models. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mike at iptrading.com Tue Jun 2 11:48:07 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:48:07 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> , <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> First a diversion: I continue to hear RFC2050 used to buttress the continuance of needs testing today. It should be obvious to anybody that *in the presence of a free pool* that without needs testing transfers, you effectively remove needs testing altogether. Otherwise someone could get addresses, transfer them away to a needless entity, and repeat the process to drain the pool. A non-starter, obviously. So of course we needed to needs-test transfers then, but the argument today is in the context of a drained free pool, and so the logic behind RFC2050's testing of transfers is likewise draining away. Onto this discussion: What is happening in this discussion is, in my mind, the tail wagging the dog. It's as if your local property registrar in your county has determined that when you buy a property, you are really buying the listing at the registrar's office. Instead of the fact that you are buying real property and the registrar is merely registering your ownership, not providing your rights to it. Just because IP addresses are not tangible, like real property, doesn't mean they only exist as database entries in a registrar's list. Especially as we have demonstrated that that list is not dispositive insofar as being able to utilize or transfer rights to utilize the addresses. We all know that ARIN is not the routing police. What David and other are saying is that your rights are to an exclusive set of numbers to be used on the Internet, not to a registry listing. And as proof of that position, they point to the fact that address rights are transferred very effectively without regards to the ARIN registry. There is no denying this. Legacy sellers legally sell their rights for money, buyers pay money and then use the addresses as they wish, and ARIN's registry has nothing to say. ARIN has played typical historical role of the over-reaching steward who comes to feel the resources being stewarded belong to the steward and not the king. So the answer to John's question of what is being transferred? The exclusive right to use a block of numbers on the Internet, deriving from a continuous chain-of-custody of rights granted legally by the US Department of Commerce. For legacy holders, anyway. For non-legacy holders, their rights derive from the RSA with ARIN, and ARIN's rights derive from their MoU with the US Department of Commerce. Imagine a thought experiment. I have a pool of 100 mutually exclusive numbers of which one is a lotto winner. I can sell each number to a buyer without a registry but with a contract. If I sell the same number to two individuals, those individuals can take legal actions based on the contract that assures exclusivity. So there are legal rights to numbers conferred via the contract that do not have anything to do with a registry. I might use a registry to keep track of things, but that is secondary to the legal rights contractually conferred. Imagine a though experiment. I received an allocation from Jon Postel, acting under the authority of the US Department of Commerce. I have an email from him with the block numbers I was assigned. I use the addresses for five years but then find that they were not properly recorded by Mr. Postel, or were incorrectly transferred to a subsequent registrar like ARIN. Can't I take the original email (the contract here) to a judge and demand that the registry be changed to match my email? Or, since the rights are "provided" by ARIN, wouldn't I be out of luck, since the rights are to a registry entry, and the entry doesn't match my email? In other words, which is primary, a contract granting me exclusive use of numbers on the Internet, or ARIN's control of their registry system? A registrar records property rights, it doesn't create them. Regards, Mike Burns From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:36 AM To: David Conrad Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad > wrote: John, On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran > wrote: Your confusion is likely over what represents "correct attribution" - if ARIN does not operate the registry according to the policies set by those who use it, In your view, who uses "the registry"? Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of "the registry"? All of the above parties (and all of them can participate in defining the registry policy) One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn't have policies that inhibit transfers One could, but I am not. I don't care if "the ARIN community" comes up with a policy defining the sky to be green. There are numerous mechanisms by which the ARIN community can enforce policy such as a prohibition against (particular) transfers: refuse to delegate reverse DNS, refuse to update the ARIN routing registry, imbed notifications of policy violations in registration records, call the out-of-policy transferees names, etc. None of these defeat the very reason for the existence of the registry. Refusing to update the registration database does. David - you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred other than rights to the registry entry itself; ie ARIN is "refusing to update the registration database", as if it were a registration of some independent item - an automobile, for example. What exactly are the IP address blocks if not the registry entry that was created when same is assigned? It is necessary to address this if you are to claim of any accuracy resulting from ARIN following community policy. but I don't think you're actually advocating that ARIN ignore community policy in the operation of the registry? The "community" that makes use of the registry is larger than "ARIN". If the subset of the community that participates in the definition of ARIN policy decided to create a policy that effectively destroyed the registration database, yes, I would definitely advocate ARIN, the corporate entity (or, more specifically, the ARIN board), ignore that policy. I believe the board would actually have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. I believe failure to maintain an accurate registration database (defined to be one that matches actual reality, not one that corresponds to what an infinitesimal subset of the Internet community thinks might be a good idea on any particular day) is a violation of the trust Jon Postel and the Internet community as a whole has placed upon ARIN when ARIN was granted the monopoly for registry services for the ARIN service region. Again, this assertion is based on your interesting interpretation that ARIN should update the register contrary to policy. With respect to Jon and the time of ARIN's formation, it is fairly clear that the current policies regarding need-based transfer would align quite well with his expectations, especially since the transfer policy at the time, as stated in RFC 2050, was such: "7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR." Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting? That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7. Done. You have yet to explain how and what is actual transferred that differs from the rights to the entry in the IP registry. If there is something else transferred (and thus discrepancy if the registry is not updated), please elucidate. If indeed the IP address block is one and the same with the rights to entry in the registry, there is no inconsistency at all. One more time: Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American _Registry_ for Internet Numbers again? Your continued attempts to dodge this question is getting depressing. The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you _start_ such a process, noting that ISP's/LIRs delegate blocks to organizations, and that the real world has things like LOA's that are often used, etc. None of this has changed - you still start the process with the registry, and need to pursue to find the operational contact you seek. ARIN following its community policy doesn't change this in the least, and you probably are aware of this reality existed long before any transfer market. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaron at wholesaleinternet.net Tue Jun 2 12:01:13 2015 From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net (Aaron) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:01:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> , <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <556DD349.6010006@wholesaleinternet.net> Exclusivity is not guaranteed outside of the registry. We can both put the same address on a piece of equipment. Who has the rights to use that address? Most people say it's whoever has the entry in the registry. I'd be happy to sell you the number 4. It will be up to you to prove to people that you have the exclusive right to use it and for them to accept that right. On 6/2/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Burns wrote: > > First a diversion: > > I continue to hear RFC2050 used to buttress the continuance of needs > testing today. > > It should be obvious to anybody that **in the presence of a free > pool** that without needs testing transfers, you effectively remove > needs testing altogether. > > Otherwise someone could get addresses, transfer them away to a > needless entity, and repeat the process to drain the pool. A > non-starter, obviously. > > So of course we needed to needs-test transfers then, but the argument > today is in the context of a drained free pool, and so the logic > behind RFC2050?s testing of transfers is likewise draining away. > > Onto this discussion: > > What is happening in this discussion is, in my mind, the tail wagging > the dog. > > It?s as if your local property registrar in your county has determined > that when you buy a property, you are really buying the listing at the > registrar?s office. > > Instead of the fact that you are buying real property and the > registrar is merely registering your ownership, not providing your > rights to it. Just because IP addresses are not tangible, like real > property, doesn?t mean they only exist as database entries in a > registrar?s list. Especially as we have demonstrated that that list is > not dispositive insofar as being able to utilize or transfer rights to > utilize the addresses. We all know that ARIN is not the routing police. > > What David and other are saying is that your rights are to an > exclusive set of numbers to be used on the Internet, not to a registry > listing. And as proof of that position, they point to the fact that > address rights are transferred very effectively without regards to the > ARIN registry. There is no denying this. Legacy sellers legally sell > their rights for money, buyers pay money and then use the addresses as > they wish, and ARIN?s registry has nothing to say. > > ARIN has played typical historical role of the over-reaching steward > who comes to feel the resources being stewarded belong to the steward > and not the king. > > So the answer to John?s question of what is being transferred? The > exclusive right to use a block of numbers on the Internet, deriving > from a continuous chain-of-custody of rights granted legally by the US > Department of Commerce. For legacy holders, anyway. For non-legacy > holders, their rights derive from the RSA with ARIN, and ARIN?s rights > derive from their MoU with the US Department of Commerce. > > Imagine a thought experiment. I have a pool of 100 mutually exclusive > numbers of which one is a lotto winner. I can sell each number to a > buyer without a registry but with a contract. If I sell the same > number to two individuals, those individuals can take legal actions > based on the contract that assures exclusivity. So there are legal > rights to numbers conferred via the contract that do not have anything > to do with a registry. I might use a registry to keep track of things, > but that is secondary to the legal rights contractually conferred. > > Imagine a though experiment. I received an allocation from Jon Postel, > acting under the authority of the US Department of Commerce. I have an > email from him with the block numbers I was assigned. I use the > addresses for five years but then find that they were not properly > recorded by Mr. Postel, or were incorrectly transferred to a > subsequent registrar like ARIN. Can?t I take the original email (the > contract here) to a judge and demand that the registry be changed to > match my email? Or, since the rights are ?provided? by ARIN, wouldn?t > I be out of luck, since the rights are to a registry entry, and the > entry doesn?t match my email? In other words, which is primary, a > contract granting me exclusive use of numbers on the Internet, or > ARIN?s control of their registry system? > > A registrar records property rights, it doesn?t create them. > > Regards, > > Mike Burns > > *From:*arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > *On Behalf Of *John Curran > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:36 AM > *To:* David Conrad > *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > > On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad > wrote: > > John, > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran > wrote: > > Your confusion is likely over what represents ?correct > attribution? - if ARIN does not > > operate the registry according to the policies set by those > who use it, > > > In your view, who uses "the registry"? > > Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law > enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of > "the registry"? > > All of the above parties (and all of them can participate in > > defining the registry policy) > > > One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn?t have policies > that inhibit transfers > > > One could, but I am not. I don't care if "the ARIN community" > comes up with a policy defining the sky to be green. There are > numerous mechanisms by which the ARIN community can enforce policy > such as a prohibition against (particular) transfers: refuse to > delegate reverse DNS, refuse to update the ARIN routing registry, > imbed notifications of policy violations in registration records, > call the out-of-policy transferees names, etc. None of these > defeat the very reason for the existence of the registry. Refusing > to update the registration database does. > > David - you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred > > other than rights to the registry entry itself; ie ARIN is "refusing > > to update the registration database", as if it were a registration > > of some independent item - an automobile, for example. What > > exactly are the IP address blocks if not the registry entry that > > was created when same is assigned? > > It is necessary to address this if you are to claim of any accuracy > > resulting from ARIN following community policy. > > but I don?t think you?re actually advocating that ARIN ignore > community policy in the > > operation of the registry? > > > The "community" that makes use of the registry is larger than "ARIN". > > If the subset of the community that participates in the definition > of ARIN policy decided to create a policy that effectively > destroyed the registration database, yes, I would definitely > advocate ARIN, the corporate entity (or, more specifically, the > ARIN board), ignore that policy. I believe the board would > actually have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. > > I believe failure to maintain an accurate registration database > (defined to be one that matches actual reality, not one that > corresponds to what an infinitesimal subset of the Internet > community thinks might be a good idea on any particular day) is a > violation of the trust Jon Postel and the Internet community as a > whole has placed upon ARIN when ARIN was granted the monopoly for > registry services for the ARIN service region. > > Again, this assertion is based on your interesting interpretation > > that ARIN should update the register contrary to policy. > > With respect to Jon and the time of ARIN's formation, it is fairly > > clear that the current policies regarding need-based transfer > > would align quite well with his expectations, especially since the > > transfer policy at the time, as stated in RFC 2050, was such: > > "7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR." > > Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting? > > > That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7. > > Done. You have yet to explain how and what is actual transferred > > that differs from the rights to the entry in the IP registry. If there is > > something else transferred (and thus discrepancy if the registry is > > not updated), please elucidate. If indeed the IP address block is > > one and the same with the rights to entry in the registry, there is > > no inconsistency at all. > > > > One more time: > > > Historically, the point of the registry database was to > facilitate management > > of the network, e.g., a place you could look up > registration information > > when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the > source address. > > In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the > American _Registry_ > > for Internet Numbers again? > > > Your continued attempts to dodge this question is getting depressing. > > The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you > > _start_ such a process, noting that ISP's/LIRs delegate blocks > > to organizations, and that the real world has things like LOA's > > that are often used, etc. > > None of this has changed - you still start the process with the > > registry, and need to pursue to find the operational contact you > > seek. ARIN following its community policy doesn't change this > > in the least, and you probably are aware of this reality existed > > long before any transfer market. > > 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. -- ================================================================ Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com ================================================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 12:08:55 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:08:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] RFC 7020: for my own benefit. Message-ID: RFC ---Goals Internet number resources are currently distributed according to the following (non-exclusive) goals: 1) Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP addresses and AS numbers, the pools from which these resources are allocated are finite. As such, allocations must be made in accordance with the operational needs of those running the networks that make use of these number resources and by taking into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation. 2) Hierarchical Allocation: Given current routing technology, the distribution of IP addresses in a hierarchical manner increases the likelihood of continued scaling of the Internet's routing system. As such, it is currently a goal to allocate IP addresses in such a way that permits aggregation of these addresses into a minimum number of routing announcements. However, whether IP addresses are actually announced to the Internet and the manner of their advertisement into the Internet's routing system are operational considerations outside the scope of the Internet Numbers Registry System. 3) Registration Accuracy: A core requirement of the Internet Numbers Registry System is to maintain a registry of allocations to ensure uniqueness and to provide accurate registration information of those allocations in order to meet a variety of operational requirements. Uniqueness ensures that IP addresses and AS numbers are not allocated to more than one party at the same time. These goals may sometimes conflict with each other or with the interests of individual end users, Internet service providers, or other number resource consumers. Careful analysis, judgment, and cooperation among registry system providers and consumers at all levels via community-developed policies are necessary to find appropriate compromises to facilitate Internet operations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jschiller at google.com Tue Jun 2 13:04:26 2015 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:04:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: I think the term "transfer" is being overloaded in this discussion. In some cases "transfer" means an above board transfer that complies with ARIN policy, and is properly documented. In some cases "transfer" means an end run around justified need and ARIN policy by making other arrangements with the rights holder to use their addresses now. In some cases "transfer" means making some arrangements with the rights holder to promise to make addresses available in the future when compliance with ARIN policy exists. Clearly designating if you are talking about an above board transfer, a below board transfer, or a future would clarify things. I think the heart of the matter is if it is good for the community for ARIN to recognize, legitimize, and reduce the risk of injury to organizations that participate in below board transfers that lack proper justified use, or futures that currently lack proper justified use. Or if it is good for ARIN to not recognize, legitimize, and not reduce the risk of injury to organizations that participate in below board transfers that lack proper justified use, or futures that currently lack proper justified use. The former would encourage more need-less transfers, reduce uncertainty for organizations that want to hold more addresses than they can currently justify. The latter would continue discourage more needless transfers, maintain current uncertainty for organizations that want to hold more addresses then they can currently justify. Certainly in the current environment, some organizations have limited the amount of investment they are willing to make in below board transfers and futures that they cannot currently justify due to the current level of risk. Certainly other organizations have avoided such transactions altogether. If this risk was reduced, or this practice legitimized such as with a need-less transfer policy, then certainly this practice would increase. There does not seem to be a way to increase uncertainty for organizations that want to hold more addresses then they can currently justify, nor an ability to completely stop this behavior or further discourage this behavior. Also with returns possible, there is always the possibility of a free pool, unless we designate all returned space go into the pool for supporting IPv6 or create a pool for only new entrants to get a /22 and designate it goes there... But that becomes wasteful as soon as we exceed a time horizon longer than wide spread IPv6 adoption. The basic question is if it is good for the community to encourage organizations that are willing to spend more cash now to get preferential access to IP addresses for potential future need over organizations that need address now (or in a two year time horizon)? ___Jason On Jun 2, 2015 11:48 AM, "Mike Burns" wrote: > First a diversion: > > > > I continue to hear RFC2050 used to buttress the continuance of needs > testing today. > > It should be obvious to anybody that **in the presence of a free pool** > that without needs testing transfers, you effectively remove needs testing > altogether. > > Otherwise someone could get addresses, transfer them away to a needless > entity, and repeat the process to drain the pool. A non-starter, > obviously. > > > > So of course we needed to needs-test transfers then, but the argument > today is in the context of a drained free pool, and so the logic behind > RFC2050?s testing of transfers is likewise draining away. > > > > Onto this discussion: > > > > What is happening in this discussion is, in my mind, the tail wagging the > dog. > > > > It?s as if your local property registrar in your county has determined > that when you buy a property, you are really buying the listing at the > registrar?s office. > > Instead of the fact that you are buying real property and the registrar is > merely registering your ownership, not providing your rights to it. Just > because IP addresses are not tangible, like real property, doesn?t mean > they only exist as database entries in a registrar?s list. Especially as we > have demonstrated that that list is not dispositive insofar as being able > to utilize or transfer rights to utilize the addresses. We all know that > ARIN is not the routing police. > > > > What David and other are saying is that your rights are to an exclusive > set of numbers to be used on the Internet, not to a registry listing. And > as proof of that position, they point to the fact that address rights are > transferred very effectively without regards to the ARIN registry. There is > no denying this. Legacy sellers legally sell their rights for money, buyers > pay money and then use the addresses as they wish, and ARIN?s registry has > nothing to say. > > > > ARIN has played typical historical role of the over-reaching steward who > comes to feel the resources being stewarded belong to the steward and not > the king. > > > > So the answer to John?s question of what is being transferred? The > exclusive right to use a block of numbers on the Internet, deriving from a > continuous chain-of-custody of rights granted legally by the US Department > of Commerce. For legacy holders, anyway. For non-legacy holders, their > rights derive from the RSA with ARIN, and ARIN?s rights derive from their > MoU with the US Department of Commerce. > > > > Imagine a thought experiment. I have a pool of 100 mutually exclusive > numbers of which one is a lotto winner. I can sell each number to a buyer > without a registry but with a contract. If I sell the same number to two > individuals, those individuals can take legal actions based on the contract > that assures exclusivity. So there are legal rights to numbers conferred > via the contract that do not have anything to do with a registry. I might > use a registry to keep track of things, but that is secondary to the legal > rights contractually conferred. > > > > Imagine a though experiment. I received an allocation from Jon Postel, > acting under the authority of the US Department of Commerce. I have an > email from him with the block numbers I was assigned. I use the addresses > for five years but then find that they were not properly recorded by Mr. > Postel, or were incorrectly transferred to a subsequent registrar like > ARIN. Can?t I take the original email (the contract here) to a judge and > demand that the registry be changed to match my email? Or, since the > rights are ?provided? by ARIN, wouldn?t I be out of luck, since the rights > are to a registry entry, and the entry doesn?t match my email? In other > words, which is primary, a contract granting me exclusive use of numbers on > the Internet, or ARIN?s control of their registry system? > > > > A registrar records property rights, it doesn?t create them. > > > > Regards, > > Mike Burns > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On > Behalf Of *John Curran > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:36 AM > *To:* David Conrad > *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > > > > On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > > > John, > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran wrote: > > Your confusion is likely over what represents ?correct attribution? - if > ARIN does not > > operate the registry according to the policies set by those who use it, > > > In your view, who uses "the registry"? > > Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement, > consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of "the registry"? > > > > All of the above parties (and all of them can participate in > > defining the registry policy) > > > One can argue that the ARIN community shouldn?t have policies that inhibit > transfers > > > One could, but I am not. I don't care if "the ARIN community" comes up > with a policy defining the sky to be green. There are numerous mechanisms > by which the ARIN community can enforce policy such as a prohibition > against (particular) transfers: refuse to delegate reverse DNS, refuse to > update the ARIN routing registry, imbed notifications of policy violations > in registration records, call the out-of-policy transferees names, etc. > None of these defeat the very reason for the existence of the registry. > Refusing to update the registration database does. > > > > David - you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred > > other than rights to the registry entry itself; ie ARIN is "refusing > > to update the registration database", as if it were a registration > > of some independent item - an automobile, for example. What > > exactly are the IP address blocks if not the registry entry that > > was created when same is assigned? > > > > It is necessary to address this if you are to claim of any accuracy > > resulting from ARIN following community policy. > > > > but I don?t think you?re actually advocating that ARIN ignore community > policy in the > > operation of the registry? > > > The "community" that makes use of the registry is larger than "ARIN". > > If the subset of the community that participates in the definition of ARIN > policy decided to create a policy that effectively destroyed the > registration database, yes, I would definitely advocate ARIN, the corporate > entity (or, more specifically, the ARIN board), ignore that policy. I > believe the board would actually have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. > > I believe failure to maintain an accurate registration database (defined > to be one that matches actual reality, not one that corresponds to what an > infinitesimal subset of the Internet community thinks might be a good idea > on any particular day) is a violation of the trust Jon Postel and the > Internet community as a whole has placed upon ARIN when ARIN was granted > the monopoly for registry services for the ARIN service region. > > > > Again, this assertion is based on your interesting interpretation > > that ARIN should update the register contrary to policy. > > > > With respect to Jon and the time of ARIN's formation, it is fairly > > clear that the current policies regarding need-based transfer > > would align quite well with his expectations, especially since the > > transfer policy at the time, as stated in RFC 2050, was such: > > > > "7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR." > > > > Could you please clarify if that is what you are suggesting? > > > That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7. > > > > Done. You have yet to explain how and what is actual transferred > > that differs from the rights to the entry in the IP registry. If there is > > something else transferred (and thus discrepancy if the registry is > > not updated), please elucidate. If indeed the IP address block is > > one and the same with the rights to entry in the registry, there is > > no inconsistency at all. > > > > One more time: > > > Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate > management > > of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information > > when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. > > In the post IPv4 free pool world, what's the point of the American > _Registry_ > > for Internet Numbers again? > > > Your continued attempts to dodge this question is getting depressing. > > > > The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you > > _start_ such a process, noting that ISP's/LIRs delegate blocks > > to organizations, and that the real world has things like LOA's > > that are often used, etc. > > > > None of this has changed - you still start the process with the > > registry, and need to pursue to find the operational contact you > > seek. ARIN following its community policy doesn't change this > > in the least, and you probably are aware of this reality existed > > long before any transfer market. > > > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 2 13:12:46 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:12:46 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> John, >> Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of "the registry"? > All of the above parties Do you think any of these communities believe it is in their or the Internet's best interests to give anyone who transfers addresses outside of ARIN policy a pass on having the registration information associated with those addresses be accurate? > you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred > other than rights to the registry entry itself; Bored with the word games. Once again: >>> Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management >>> of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information >>> when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. By refusing to accept changed registration information, even in cases where the change is mutually agreeable among the two parties, ARIN policies are directly damaging the registry database. I do not believe this is good stewardship and believe it is a violation of the trust the community (not just ARIN participants) has placed in ARIN. This isn't about whether transfers should or shouldn't be allowed, this is about REGISTRY ACCURACY. Playing legalistic word games by redefining what the registry is might make your lawyers and wannabe lawyers happy, but it does not help the Internet community. >> That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7. > Done. Are you seriously arguing that pretending a transfer didn't occur because it doesn't conform to ARIN's "Policy of the Day" means ARIN is abiding by the requirement to "provide accurate registration information of those allocations in order to meet a variety of operational requirements."? > The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you > _start_ such a process, And what happens when the _start_ of the process is intentionally made inaccurate? Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 2 15:10:47 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 19:10:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> On Jun 2, 2015, at 1:12 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > John, > >>> Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make "use" of "the registry"? >> All of the above parties > > Do you think any of these communities believe it is in their or the Internet's best interests to give anyone who transfers addresses outside of ARIN policy a pass on having the registration information associated with those addresses be accurate? Interesting question. For the moment, I?ll presume that by ?accurate? you mean whether the party operationally using the address block matches the address holder. If the answer is ?no? (they object to an different operational party), then how do they cope with the existing customer delegation, Letter of Agency (LOA) and leasing situations today? Are these communities unable to deal with such, or expect that ISPs not accept such? How do they intend to prevent such a practice? These communities understand that the address holder is the start of the process; it is not at all uncommon that some other party (e.g. an affiliate, a customer, etc.) is actually operationally using the address block. If there is a different expectation, then they had best engage with the ISP regarding a very wide range of practices (of which address transfers are only one mismatch) > you seem to think that there's some "thing" transferred >> other than rights to the registry entry itself; > > Bored with the word games. Once again: > >>>> Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management >>>> of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information >>>> when you wanted to contact the entity associated with the source address. > > By refusing to accept changed registration information, even in cases where the change is mutually agreeable among the two parties, ARIN policies are directly damaging the registry database. David - It?s not a word game; it very much has to do with being precise about what actual rights are involved. This is extremely important, particularly if address holders want to have meaningful legal recourse. It is fairly straightforward to explain how an Internet identifier registry is operated as a cooperative activity on behalf of the community, under policies set by that community, and that parties issued address blocks are associated with specific entries and have specific rights to those entries as provided by registry policy. No hand waving and no magic sauce involved. You have yet to identify what exactly what a buyer is obtaining _other that these rights to the entry in the registry as provided by registry policy_, and your inability to do so is central to the issue. We have hundreds of address transfers taking place which indicate that the rights to the address block entry are transferred to the recipient; what other rights do you feel folks are purchasing aside from those associated with address block entry and where do those rights originate? You assert that cases where the registry policy isn?t followed (and the registry not updated to reflect the buyer) result in ?registry inaccuracy?, in that the buyer received something but they are not listed on IP address block entry in the registry. One must ask then what exactly did the buyer actually receive in this case, and why isn?t this a case of outright fraud on behalf of the seller, given that the registry policies are public and preclude transfer of the rights to the IP address block in the registry? Note that ARIN is presently issuing IPv4 address space, and we provide very clear language noting what these recipients are receiving for rights to the address block; your formulation implies that there?s something else (in addition to these rights to the registry entry) when an IP address block is being issued - what exactly is it? It is clearly very important for that to be known to all of the RIRs so that we can inform new recipients of what exactly that right is and provide them appropriate documentation of it. We are also issuing IPv6 address blocks to parties every month, how should we explain your "je ne sais quoi? rights that you believe they get along with the much more legally clear rights to the IP address block entry in the registry? > I do not believe this is good stewardship and believe it is a violation of the trust the community (not just ARIN participants) has placed in ARIN. This isn't about whether transfers should or shouldn't be allowed, this is about REGISTRY ACCURACY. Playing legalistic word games by redefining what the registry is might make your lawyers and wannabe lawyers happy, but it does not help the Internet community. I?m not sure that capitals particularly add anything? The registry is accurate if operated in accordance with the registry policy. Note that for some Internet identifier registries, it is quite possible that there are no transfers possible? how does the IANA handle the listed contact wishing to sell a MIME media-type entry? Once I obtain one, can I transfer it to anyone who needs the unique value? If the IANA fails to process it, noting absence of policy allowing such, does the registry become ?inaccurate" because I just let another company use it and note that the IANA isn?t keeping up? How the IANA would handle such a case might provide a rather informative example regarding "registry accuracy"... >>> That ARIN abide by RFC 7020, section 2.3 and section 7. >> Done. > > Are you seriously arguing that pretending a transfer didn't occur because it doesn't conform to ARIN's "Policy of the Day" means ARIN is abiding by the requirement to "provide accurate registration information of those allocations in order to meet a variety of operational requirements.?? Registries have policy which specify their contents. If the contents don?t match that result, then indeed there is a serious REGISTRY ACCURACY problem. >> The actual use of the registry has to obtain the place where you >> _start_ such a process, > > And what happens when the _start_ of the process is intentionally made inaccurate? It?s quite accurate, and the address holder should be able to tell you if someone else is operationally making use of the space. As noted above, it?s a fairly common occurrence (e.g. customer delegations) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 2 16:08:33 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:08:33 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> Message-ID: <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> We're way off in the weeds talking about what the word "transfer" means. And I still have no idea why the community believes that "the potential for A->B->Money lather, rinse, repeat" matters at all once the free pool is empty. Unless I missed it in the noise, not even the initial objectors to the policy can explain this. Matthew Kaufman From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 2 17:21:07 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:21:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:48 AM, Mike Burns > wrote: First a diversion: I continue to hear RFC2050 used to buttress the continuance of needs testing today. Mike - I do not know if you are speaking of my reference to RFC 2050, but if that?s the case, I should be clear and note that in no way was I citing that as an argument in favor (or against for that matter) needs-testing for transfers today; it was simply to refute a statement regarding Jon Postel?s expectations on transfers and need-testing back in the time when ARIN was founded. I have no view either way on the merits of needs-testing for transfers, but am obligated to defend the community?s right to have the registry administered in accordance with its policies (which is a very different topic indeed! :-) Onto this discussion: What is happening in this discussion is, in my mind, the tail wagging the dog. It?s as if your local property registrar in your county has determined that when you buy a property, you are really buying the listing at the registrar?s office. Instead of the fact that you are buying real property and the registrar is merely registering your ownership, not providing your rights to it. Just because IP addresses are not tangible, like real property, doesn?t mean they only exist as database entries in a registrar?s list. Even intangible property rights can be described - the right to license a music piece for performance, the right to minerals or oil beneath property, the right to use a certain mark in commerce, etc. There?s no question that there can be rights that are additional to the rights associated with the address block entry in the registry, however, no one has clearly described what additional rights these might be or how these rights are obtained. I do appreciate that you attempt to do so below, but ultimately your position is predicated upon the US Government, and the USG itself has taken a very different stance... What David and other are saying is that your rights are to an exclusive set of numbers to be used on the Internet, not to a registry listing. Rights to an exclusive set of numbers to be used on the Internet? How exactly is this right being granted by the RIR along with the issued address block, and what obligation does it impose on others? A legal right is (roughly) interest in a claim that compels someone else to do (or not do) a particular course of action, a claim for which the state provides a remedy in court. You seem to assert that there is a right granted to ?use the numbers on the Internet?, but that would require some legal basis to the right such that a court would recognize it and be willing to enforce against the parties that make up the global Internet. So the answer to John?s question of what is being transferred? The exclusive right to use a block of numbers on the Internet, deriving from a continuous chain-of-custody of rights granted legally by the US Department of Commerce. For legacy holders, anyway. For non-legacy holders, their rights derive from the RSA with ARIN, and ARIN?s rights derive from their MoU with the US Department of Commerce. That would imply that the US Department of Commerce (US DoC) has the ability to issue these rights, including the imposition of obligations to honor these rights on the parties of ?the Internet? that use IP addresses. Note that such a position doesn?t match that of the US Government; in fact, we?re in the midst of planning for the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions, and so we access to quite contemporary information from the US DoC which contradicts your position - for example, the letter early this month from DoC/NTIA to Congress that notes that ?NTIA has no legal or statutory responsibility? with respect to the IANA functions... Absent such legislative authority, there is no way that the IANA technical functions place obligations on even US businesses or the public in this area, let alone the ability to obligate the global community to obey its dictate regarding who gets ?the exclusive right to use a block of numbers on the Internet? (as you put it) You also seem to believe that there?s an MOU between ARIN and the Department of Commerce - that?s not the case, ARIN was founded by the community as a cooperative endeavor to administer the registry. Per the USG/NSF press release - "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.? The actual US Government policy with regards to Internet numbers has quite similar language; review the "United States Government?s Internet Protocol Numbering Principles? as provided by DoC/NTIA - You will find included in the principles the following statements - ? As we continue to transition to this next-generation Internet routing system, it is important to clarify the United States Government?s (USG) position on the development of Internet technical standards and policies: ? We continue to believe that the proper model for the development of Internet technical standards and policies, including those related to IP numbers, is the multistakeholder model. ? The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), via their multistakeholder processes, are responsible for developing policies for the use of IP numbers within their respective specific geographic regions. ? The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) is the RIR for Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic islands, and the United States. The USG participates in the development of and is supportive of the policies, processes, and procedures agreed upon by the Internet technical community through ARIN. ? i.e. it is quite plain that the USG expects the registry to be a cooperative multi-stakeholder activity, with the USG as another participant in this community, not an issuer of any form of governmental licenses or grants. ... Imagine a though experiment. I received an allocation from Jon Postel, acting under the authority of the US Department of Commerce. I have an email from him with the block numbers I was assigned. I use the addresses for five years but then find that they were not properly recorded by Mr. Postel, or were incorrectly transferred to a subsequent registrar like ARIN. Can?t I take the original email (the contract here) to a judge and demand that the registry be changed to match my email? Or, since the rights are ?provided? by ARIN, wouldn?t I be out of luck, since the rights are to a registry entry, and the entry doesn?t match my email? In other words, which is primary, a contract granting me exclusive use of numbers on the Internet, or ARIN?s control of their registry system? Actually, that experiment is quite easy (as we _are_ the formal successor registry that Jon helped form.) In such an circumstance, we?d correct the clerical error if such were possible and mitigate impact if not. The fact that you were assigned the block in the registry provides you the rights to be associated with that block and if you didn?t transfer or if it did not get recorded correctly, you still have the right of being the party assigned the block (and we recognize and honor that right as the successor registry.) If you feel that there are other rights (e.g. the ability to be assigned an address block and not be subject to any registry policy ever), then that would be something you?d probably need to seek redress for? I?ll note that we?ve heard it before, and to date ARIN has not been ordered or subject to a judgement to do anything other than follow the community-developed policies for all resources in the registry. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 3 04:10:22 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:10:22 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> Message-ID: <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> It matters because the ability to obtain unlimited address space absent justified need could be used nefariously in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to: 1. Competitive advantage 2. Anticompetitive practices 3. Price gouging 4. Market manipulation Owen > On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > We're way off in the weeds talking about what the word "transfer" means. > > And I still have no idea why the community believes that "the potential for A->B->Money lather, rinse, repeat" matters at all once the free pool is empty. Unless I missed it in the noise, not even the initial objectors to the policy can explain this. > > Matthew Kaufman > _______________________________________________ > 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 3 05:02:34 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:02:34 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Speaking only as myself and not representing the views of ARIN, the ARIN AC, or any other person, group, body, structure, vessel, corporation or SuperPAC. I believe at the heart of the difficulty coming to agreement about what rights are being transferred is the fact that one side of the debate appears to be missing some key things about the fundamental nature of the internet. Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication of an ?exclusive right to use? accompanying the number registry. Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a precedence-based presumption about the determination of who is the ?interfering party? in a case where interference exists. However, an exclusive right to use would go further than that. As an example, if Company A has a registration for 1.2.3.0/24 and uses it entirely on their internal network without advertising it to the internet and Company B also uses it on their internal network without advertising it, there are then at least two possible legal scenarios? Scenario 1, A?s registration includes an exclusive right to use. In this case, if A were to learn of B?s usage, they may well have a civil claim against B for violating that exclusive right to use. A case for tortious interference really doesn?t exist here because there is no interference. Scenario 2, which I believe is applicable in this case? Since B?s use does not interfere with A?s use, there is no interference and no case for tortious interference exists. Thus, the possibility of a case of tortious interference alone is insufficient to prove a right to exclusive use. There is precedence for this in the Amateur radio system as well. Nobody has any exclusive rights to frequencies or frequency pairs used for repeaters. However, a repeater which is registered and allocated frequency pairs by the local repeater coordinator (a non-government body, similar, but not identical to ARIN) gets interference from a repeater which is not ?coordinated?, the FCC will side with the coordinated repeater and ask the non-coordinated repeater to take steps to resolve the interference. It is easy and we often make the mistake of thinking of the internet as a single cohesive network with some level of central administration. This ignores the fundamental underlying nature of the internet. The internet is a collection of independently owned and operated networks. None of the network operators have any legal obligation to play by RIR, IETF, or other policies other than those they voluntarily accept in contracts with those entities (e.g. ARIN RSA). Like it or not, the internet is held together by good will and cooperation. The high level of cooperation from ISPs with the RIR system is what gives registration in the RIR system meaning and not some sort of government-like power or army of enforcement officers. Owen From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 3 10:17:40 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:17:40 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> Message-ID: <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> John, > David - It?s not a word game; Actually, it is. It is the same kind of Clintonesque "I did not have 'sex' with that woman"/"depends on meaning of the word 'is' is" legalistic word games that made Bill Clinton the butt of so many jokes (and ultimately didn't help him). Instead of addressing the obvious operational problem caused by ignoring (or, if you prefer, redefining the applicability of) 7020 section 2.3, it is attempting to come up with a legalistic fantasy framework of words that attempts to define away the problem. I'm sure it's all internally logically consistent and makes all sorts of sense if you're looking for a way for your lawyers to argue in court as opposed to actually addressing the issue, but that doesn't seem like it meets the original purpose for establishing ARIN. It is disappointing to see ARIN devolve to this, but I've gotten used to being disappointed. As I said previously, I'm bored with word games and it's clear this discussion has past the point of diminishing returns. ARIN's failure to maintain an accurate registry database in the scenarios I described will, in the end, be most damaging to ARIN itself. Unfortunately, there will be collateral damage to the Internet community that entrusted ARIN with the responsibility to accurately reflect the state of address allocations in the ARIN service region (_not_ only those allocations recognized by ARIN's policy-of-the-day), but I suspect in time others will see that damage and 'route around it'. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 3 10:25:59 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:25:59 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> Message-ID: <1C77001C-C0F0-4C1E-8847-87FD76EAF336@virtualized.org> Owen, On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > It matters because the ability to obtain unlimited address space Hint: IPv4 is limited, largely allocated, and in private hands. > absent justified need could be used nefariously in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to: > 1. Competitive advantage > 2. Anticompetitive practices > 3. Price gouging > 4. Market manipulation And the end result of all this nefariousness (and the astonishing Byzantine gymnastics some in the community is engaging in to try to prevent their own interpretation of 'nefariousness') would be: IPv4 is limited, largely allocated, and in private hands. Sorry, what problem are you trying to solve again? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 10:32:09 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:32:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <1C77001C-C0F0-4C1E-8847-87FD76EAF336@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> <1C77001C-C0F0-4C1E-8847-87FD76EAF336@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Conrad wrote: > And the end result of all this nefariousness (and the astonishing Byzantine gymnastics some in the community is engaging in to try to prevent their own interpretation of 'nefariousness') would be: > > IPv4 is limited, largely allocated, and in private hands. > > Sorry, what problem are you trying to solve again? The one where it ends up in private hands who aren't allowed to sell it to me even if they want to? Possibly other problems, but at the very least that one. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 10:34:34 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:34:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:17 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> David - It?s not a word game; > > Actually, it is. Hi David, It's such a popular word game there's a specific name for it: dissembling. One responds to the statements one wishes had been made and hopes nobody notices the difference. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 10:57:33 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 14:57:33 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:17 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > John, > >> David - It?s not a word game; > > Actually, it is. > > It is the same kind of Clintonesque "I did not have 'sex' with that woman"/"depends on meaning of the word 'is' is" legalistic word games that made Bill Clinton the butt of so many jokes (and ultimately didn't help him). > > Instead of addressing the obvious operational problem caused by ignoring (or, if you prefer, redefining the applicability of) 7020 section 2.3, it is attempting to come up with a legalistic fantasy framework of words that attempts to define away the problem. I'm sure it's all internally logically consistent and makes all sorts of sense if you're looking for a way for your lawyers to argue in court as opposed to actually addressing the issue, but that doesn't seem like it meets the original purpose for establishing ARIN. It is disappointing to see ARIN devolve to this, but I've gotten used to being disappointed. > > As I said previously, I'm bored with word games and it's clear this discussion has past the point of diminishing returns. ARIN's failure to maintain an accurate registry database in the scenarios I described will, in the end, be most damaging to ARIN itself. Unfortunately, there will be collateral damage to the Internet community that entrusted ARIN with the responsibility to accurately reflect the state of address allocations in the ARIN service region (_not_ only those allocations recognized by ARIN's policy-of-the-day), but I suspect in time others will see that damage and 'route around it?. David - It is unfortunate that you do not value the importance of the legal framework for the Internet identifier registry system, as it is now more important than ever (given the planning for the IANA stewardship transition) that the rights and the corresponding obligations of those holding Internet identifiers of all types be made clear. > (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) Acknowledged. You might want to confer with those who within ICANN are working on this same issue when you have the opportunity. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From matthew at matthew.at Wed Jun 3 11:20:34 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:20:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> Message-ID: <556F1B42.5020008@matthew.at> On 6/3/2015 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > It matters because the ability to obtain unlimited address space absent justified need could be used nefariously in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to: > 1. Competitive advantage > 2. Anticompetitive practices > 3. Price gouging > 4. Market manipulation > That's all true. The ability to obtain unlimited address space *could* be used that way. Of course with a finite amount of space and without a free pool, it is really hard to "obtain unlimited address space". Things that stand in the way: 1. There isn't an "unlimited" amount of address space 2. No buyer in the transfer market has an "unlimited" amount of money (and even if they did, they wouldn't spend it doing this unless there was some way to profit from it, which really needs to suppose that they can also prevent IPv6 from happening) 3. At least so far, there's more space available to transfer than buyers (suggested by the fact that so far, we are not seeing significant bidding wars between big players going after the same pieces of space) - this suggests that even entities which could afford to do what you claim will happen aren't doing it. 4. And most important, almost all of the space is already in the hands of organizations that need it for their own purposes, so won't be willing to sell. Your employer, my employer, and others have all acquired space their need for their current and ongoing operations - the only way in the near future to acquire the space that Microsoft or Amazon (for instance) has acquired to run their cloud services would be to purchase the entire company. And then you'd be doing an 8.2 transfer! And because those organizations have the space they need for their own purposes, none of the things you are worried about can matter: Competitive advantage? Anticompetitive practices? Doesn't really work against competitors who already have space. Price gouging? Market manipulation? Can't do that to people who already have the space they need. Matthew Kaufman From matthew at matthew.at Wed Jun 3 11:31:03 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:31:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> <1C77001C-C0F0-4C1E-8847-87FD76EAF336@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <556F1DB7.2010205@matthew.at> On 6/3/2015 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: > The one where it ends up in private hands who aren't allowed to sell > it to me even if they want to? Possibly other problems, but at the > very least that one. Exactly. All that the existing policies are doing is making it harder for people who want to buy space from people who have it to sell to do so. *That* is "market manipulation", as Owen puts it (by the ARIN community through the policies it has set, no less). It also provides "competitive advantage" to those who are able to get around these policies (because they have enough lawyers, or can create additional legal entities to re-characterize things as 8.2 transfers, or whatever). Matthew Kaufman From jschiller at google.com Wed Jun 3 12:19:38 2015 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 12:19:38 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556F1B42.5020008@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> <556F1B42.5020008@matthew.at> Message-ID: There are two classes of address users on the Internet. 1. Those whose need for IP addresses does not grow 2. Those whose need for IP addresses continues to grow In the case of the first camp, there is no competitive disadvantage if someone else buys all the available IPv4 addresses. In the case of the second camp, if your organization can buy enough IPv4 addresses to make it through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, or at least have a longer time horizon of addresses than your competitors then there is no business impact of running out of IPv4. On the other hand if you don't have enough IPv4 addresses to make it through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, and you run out before your competitors you risk losing growth going forward if there is IPv4-only content that your transit customers desire, or if there is an IPv4-only customer base your service want to serve. You don't need an unlimited supply, you only need either enough to get you through transition or more than your competitor (which ever is less). I don't think it is safe to assume that all companies who need addresses for growth have already secured enough to get them through transition. (If that was the case we wouldn't be having this discussion.) Certainly some organizations have decided not to complete below board transfers that they cannot currently justify under ARIN policy. Certainly some have decided not to secure a future in IPv4 addresses because the risk is too high. Certainly some have limited their activities because of the level of risk, lack of transparency in pricing, uncertainty about IPv6 adoption time lines, uncertainty about the customer measurable impact of CGN, and a dozen other things. Nor do I think it is safe to assume that all the IPv4 addresses that could be made available have already been made available. Given that it is likely that there are organization that have not secured enough IPv4 addresses to get them through wide spread IPv6 adoption. Given that it is likely that there are still more IPv4 addresses available on the market for the right price. Given that there is always the possibility that IPv4 addresses could be returned and made available through the current mechanisms. Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of below board transfers and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can justify for the next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior where organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential access to IPv4 addresses for potential future need over organizations that need addresses now (or in the next two year time horizon)? __Jason On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/3/2015 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> It matters because the ability to obtain unlimited address space absent >> justified need could be used nefariously in a variety of ways, including, >> but not limited to: >> 1. Competitive advantage >> 2. Anticompetitive practices >> 3. Price gouging >> 4. Market manipulation >> >> > That's all true. The ability to obtain unlimited address space *could* be > used that way. Of course with a finite amount of space and without a free > pool, it is really hard to "obtain unlimited address space". > > Things that stand in the way: > 1. There isn't an "unlimited" amount of address space > 2. No buyer in the transfer market has an "unlimited" amount of money (and > even if they did, they wouldn't spend it doing this unless there was some > way to profit from it, which really needs to suppose that they can also > prevent IPv6 from happening) > 3. At least so far, there's more space available to transfer than buyers > (suggested by the fact that so far, we are not seeing significant bidding > wars between big players going after the same pieces of space) - this > suggests that even entities which could afford to do what you claim will > happen aren't doing it. > 4. And most important, almost all of the space is already in the hands of > organizations that need it for their own purposes, so won't be willing to > sell. Your employer, my employer, and others have all acquired space their > need for their current and ongoing operations - the only way in the near > future to acquire the space that Microsoft or Amazon (for instance) has > acquired to run their cloud services would be to purchase the entire > company. And then you'd be doing an 8.2 transfer! > > And because those organizations have the space they need for their own > purposes, none of the things you are worried about can matter: > > Competitive advantage? Anticompetitive practices? Doesn't really work > against competitors who already have space. > > Price gouging? Market manipulation? Can't do that to people who already > have the space they need. > > > Matthew Kaufman > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Wed Jun 3 12:35:02 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:35:02 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> <556F1B42.5020008@matthew.at> Message-ID: <556F2CB6.5020707@matthew.at> Orgs that have money now and future needs can sign contracts to lock up space from potential sellers, to be transferred later. Nothing ARIN policy can do about that. Already happening. So which people does needs assessment for transfer help, again? Matthew Kaufman From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 12:45:03 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:45:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556F2CB6.5020707@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> <556F1B42.5020008@matthew.at> <556F2CB6.5020707@matthew.at> Message-ID: <57AFFDBE-33C8-4620-9EC7-373AA586B56A@corp.arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > Orgs that have money now and future needs can sign contracts to lock up space from potential sellers, to be transferred later. Nothing ARIN policy can do about that. Already happening. > > So which people does needs assessment for transfer help, again? Needs-assesment does inhibit organizations which lack operational need (present or future) from investing in number resources and monetizing them in the future. There are obviously creative workarounds, but they introduce significant risk and thus makes investment correspondingly less attractive. Whether inhibiting non-operational market participants is desirable (and the related costs of doing so) is an economics/policy question for the community to consider. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 12:48:21 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 12:48:21 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556F1DB7.2010205@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> <1C77001C-C0F0-4C1E-8847-87FD76EAF336@virtualized.org> <556F1DB7.2010205@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/3/2015 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> >> The one where it ends up in private hands who aren't allowed to sell it to >> me even if they want to? Possibly other problems, but at the very least that >> one. > > Exactly. All that the existing policies are doing is making it harder for > people who want to buy space from people who have it to sell to do so. That's why I'm in favor of easy in-region transfers yet very much against out-region transfers. With out-region transfers, addresses land at places like CNNIC where subsequent out-region transfers are apparently not just against policy, they're illegal. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 13:15:23 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:15:23 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication of an ?exclusive right to use? accompanying the number registry. Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a precedence-based presumption about the determination of who is the ?interfering party? in a case where interference exists. However, an exclusive right to use would go further than that. Hi Owen, That's possible. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on a judge not following the path from tortious interference to its natural conclusion: that a block of Internet addresses is documentary intangible property under common law, subject to centuries of well understood precedent over folks' rights. When in doubt, what quacks like a duck is a duck. > As an example, if Company A has a registration for 1.2.3.0/24 and uses it entirely on their internal network without advertising it to the internet and Company B also uses it on their internal network without advertising it, there are then at least two possible legal scenarios? > > Scenario 1, A?s registration includes an exclusive right to use. In this case, if A were to learn of B?s usage, they may well have a civil claim against B for violating that exclusive right to use. A case for tortious interference really doesn?t exist here because there is no interference. > > Scenario 2, which I believe is applicable in this case? Since B?s use does not interfere with A?s use, there is no interference and no case for tortious interference exists. I think you've offered a pretty tortured chain of logic. A far simpler explanation is that the rights in question are constrained to the public Internet. IP addresses are more than integers only when they appear in someone's Internet routing table. The law is long familiar with intangibles whose existence is bound by context. Indeed, the law already has excessive precedent establishing the number on a bank check as an intangible property, but only in a specific context. > Thus, the possibility of a case of tortious interference alone is insufficient to prove a right to exclusive use. Perhaps. Time will tell. > There is precedence for this in the Amateur radio system as well. Nobody has > any exclusive rights to frequencies or frequency pairs used for repeaters. > However, a repeater which is registered and allocated frequency pairs by the > local repeater coordinator (a non-government body, similar, but not identical > to ARIN) gets interference from a repeater which is not ?coordinated?, the > FCC will side with the coordinated repeater and ask the non-coordinated > repeater to take steps to resolve the interference. Dubious as precedent. Regulation of Ham radio frequencies flows directly from current federal statute. The only vaguely comparable source of governmental authority regarding Internet routing stems from a National Science Foundation research project that ended 20 years ago with something that could be reasonably described as abandonment. More, during the project's run, the NSF failed to offer any guidance that was particularly on point for this debate. > Like it or not, the internet is held together by good will and cooperation. > The high level of cooperation from ISPs with the RIR system is what > gives registration in the RIR system meaning and not some sort of > government-like power or army of enforcement officers. All common law starts as a violation of some mass-respected convention of human behavior that victims choose to challenge in court. At which point the court fits the facts into the nearest framework precedent provides. The decisions the judge makes then establish the new precedent, the new law, that governs how similar sets of facts are treated in future cases. Such law endures until and unless overridden by statute. I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't help but notice that when ARIN has been in court, counsel has been in no rush to induce a judge to clarify the matter. Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each case could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. I think ARIN counsel is far less confident of prevailing on the address-aren't-property claim than John lets on. And I think he has good reason for concern. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 13:30:36 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:30:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:15 PM, William Herrin wrote: > ... > I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense > within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks > are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't > help but notice that when ARIN has been in court, counsel has been in > no rush to induce a judge to clarify the matter. Bill - That?s incorrect - we?ve actively welcomed clarity in such proceedings. > Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each case > could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. That is also incorrect. A ruling on the particular question has not occurred because other parties have accepted orders which acknowledge that a transfer will only taking place in accordance with the community policy, i.e. it is ultimately on those asserting the right to do otherwise (not ARIN) to pursue matters to their desired outcome. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 3 13:33:00 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:33:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> Message-ID: <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> John, > It is unfortunate that you do not value the importance of the legal framework for the > Internet identifier registry system, It is this kind of pointless hyperbole that makes discussing things with you such a joy. On the contrary John, I (of course) place great value legal frameworks, however I strongly believe that such legal frameworks must be created to allow for the entities operating within that framework to perform the functions for which they were created. It is unfortunate ARIN appears to view such functions as secondary to the legal framework (I seem to recall a similar situation with regards to ARIN's requirements to testing RPKI, but I'm sure I must be mistaken). >> (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) > Acknowledged. Lovely. However, if the "ARIN Board" is again going to direct ARIN counsel to complain to ICANN Legal Counsel about my personal postings to this mailing list, I do hope this time, unlike last time, you'll do me the courtesy of cc'ing on the letter. Thanks! > You might want to confer with those who within ICANN are working > on this same issue when you have the opportunity. Confer with people inside ICANN about stuff I'm working on? What an idea! Thanks for the advice. I'll take it with the undoubted sincerity in which it was intended. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 13:54:58 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:54:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:30 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:15 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> ... >> I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense >> within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks >> are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't >> help but notice that when ARIN has been in court, counsel has been in >> no rush to induce a judge to clarify the matter. > > That?s incorrect - we?ve actively welcomed clarity in such proceedings. And have miraculously avoided getting it. >> Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each case >> could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. > > That is also incorrect. > > A ruling on the particular question has not occurred because other parties have > accepted orders which acknowledge that a transfer will only taking place in > accordance with the community policy, i.e. it is ultimately on those asserting the > right to do otherwise (not ARIN) to pursue matters to their desired outcome. Like when Microsoft was bribed with an offer to accept transfer of millions addresses under the LRSA despite the plain policy language requiring that it be done under the classic RSA. You guys stretch the policies 'till they scream if your opponents are willing to stop short of requiring a judge to rule on the property question. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 14:12:05 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:12:05 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> Message-ID: <7BD38C11-8489-4A83-98D4-31E35C9C588E@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:54 PM, William Herrin > wrote: And have miraculously avoided getting it. It is obvious that such an outcome would be quite welcome. Again, it is upon others to pursue their particular beliefs if they feel legal redress is called for. ... Like when Microsoft was bribed with an offer to accept transfer of millions addresses under the LRSA despite the plain policy language requiring that it be done under the classic RSA. Bill - Same answer as on 12 June 2012 (attached). /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === * From: John Curran (jcurran at arin.net) * Date: Fri Jun 22 13:43:33 EDT 2012 * Next message: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry * Previous message: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 14:25:16 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:25:16 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:33 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > On the contrary John, I (of course) place great value legal frameworks, however I strongly believe that such legal frameworks must be created to allow for the entities operating within that framework to perform the functions for which they were created. > > It is unfortunate ARIN appears to view such functions as secondary to the legal framework (I seem to recall a similar situation with regards to ARIN's requirements to testing RPKI, but I'm sure I must be mistaken). David - You obviously feel very strongly about this topic, but I haven?t been able to discern what you feel ARIN or the ARIN community should being doing in this respect. If I understand your view on the matter, you are concerned that current ARIN registry policy as developed by this community results in ?registry inaccuracy? (as noted, I disagree with that premise but we?ll use your terminology for now) I don?t think that you are advocating for ARIN not to follow the community- developed policy (although you were not quite clear when directly asked that) Note that there are not many other options - 1) Are you simply strongly advocating that community on this mailing list should change the registry policy such that there is no needs-basis for transfers? 2) Alternatively, do you believe that the community should not have been allowed to establish any policy for transfers, as registry policy has historically been with respect to the allocation/assignment role of the registry, and the ongoing role of registry administration and maintenance should not have any applicable policy? If the latter (#2), would that belief mean that there should also be no policy setting a minimum block size for transfers or required contact information, etc? There is some manner in which you feel that ARIN has cast aside proper registry functioning, and I am trying understand if it is consternation with the ARIN community over their policy choices or a structural belief regarding the application of registry policy. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mike at iptrading.com Wed Jun 3 14:26:55 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> Message-ID: <00b101d09e2a$df062000$9d126000$@iptrading.com> . > Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each > case could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. That is also incorrect. Thanks! /John Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses allocated to defunct entities being sold in a bankruptcy court with no mention of ARIN. In a court where the judge found that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer the addresses before bidding began. And I remember ARIN engaging in secret negotiations with Microsoft in the 30 days it had before the judge finalized his order, and allowing it to sign a modified Legacy Services Agreement when policy required an RSA. And I remember ARIN scurrying in that 30 days to find that Microsoft apparently had a justified need for precisely the number of ip addresses allocated to a motley crew of companies acquired by Nortel in the 1990s. And language about requirements designed with aggregation in mind, which required a single block transfer, were ignored. Instead of letting the judge finalize his order as it was written. To me that is evidence of what Bill is saying. Regards, Mike From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 14:51:40 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:51:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <00b101d09e2a$df062000$9d126000$@iptrading.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> <00b101d09e2a$df062000$9d126000$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <7F61937D-1594-437E-B371-845A60B5524B@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses allocated to defunct entities being sold in a bankruptcy court with no mention of ARIN. > In a court where the judge found that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer the addresses before bidding began. Your recollection is a little off - the judge did not approve the proposed order with such a finding; it was when that was brought before the judge for consideration that ARIN was notified of the proposed order and as a result we filed with the court on the matter to the contrary. There was then an Amended Sale Agreement and Revised Order that were the result of negotiations between Microsoft, ARIN and NNI with appropriate language. (you can find this in NNI Bankruptcy Docket #5280) Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mwinters at edwardrose.com Wed Jun 3 14:53:56 2015 From: mwinters at edwardrose.com (Mike Winters) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:53:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: This has been dragging on for so long, I forget what it was originally about? -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 1:15 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication of an ?exclusive right to use? accompanying the number registry. Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a precedence-based presumption about the determination of who is the ?interfering party? in a case where interference exists. However, an exclusive right to use would go further than that. Hi Owen, That's possible. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on a judge not following the path from tortious interference to its natural conclusion: that a block of Internet addresses is documentary intangible property under common law, subject to centuries of well understood precedent over folks' rights. When in doubt, what quacks like a duck is a duck. So if someone is using addresses that are unassigned or assigned by ARIN (but not used) then the unregistered party would own them. Which means ARIN and the ?registered user? would be the ones subject to a tortious interference claim. Also, your ?natural conclusion? has a major problem, you would have to completely overlook paragraph 7 of the RSA which clearly states that there are no property rights. It additionally says that the holder may not attempt to obtain or assert any rights over the number resources, so by going to court and asserting such, you would be in breach of the RSA. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at iptrading.com Wed Jun 3 15:02:27 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:02:27 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <7F61937D-1594-437E-B371-845A60B5524B@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> <00b101d09e2a$df062000$9d126000$@iptra ding.com> <7F61937D-15 94-437E-B371-845A60B5524B@arin.net> Message-ID: <00ec01d09e2f$d5acfd80$8106f880$@iptrading.com> > > Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses allocated to defunct entities being sold in a bankruptcy court with no mention of ARIN. > In a court where the judge found that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer the addresses before bidding began. Your recollection is a little off - the judge did not approve the proposed order with such a finding; it was when that was brought before the judge for consideration that ARIN was notified of the proposed order and as a result we filed with the court on the matter to the contrary. There was then an Amended Sale Agreement and Revised Order that were the result of negotiations between Microsoft, ARIN and NNI with appropriate language. (you can find this in NNI Bankruptcy Docket #5280) Thanks, /John My recollection is not off and my statement stands. The judge, after consulting with counsel for Nortel on the issue, issued a motion for the auction to commence in which he found that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer the addresses. Otherwise he couldn't really sell them in bankruptcy court. There was nothing about ARIN in that motion, the only language involving ARIN came after you were finally notified of the auction and had 30 days to negotiate with Microsoft. You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in that case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you negotiated with Microsoft to accept changes to the proposed sale agreement which provide the fig leaf of cover for ARIN to claim that this was an in-policy transfer. Care to address the single aggregate problem or the miraculous coincidence between Microsoft's need and Nortel's decades-prior acquisitions' needs? It sure is lucky Microsoft won the entire block, because the auction included bids for partial blocks. What would have happened if those needs didn't mesh so closely, I wonder? Regards, Mike From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 15:34:22 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:34:22 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <00ec01d09e2f$d5acfd80$8106f880$@iptrading.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> <00b101d09e2a$df062000$9d126000$@iptra ding.com> <7F61937D-15 94-437E-B371-845A60B5524B@arin.net> <00ec01d09e2f$d5acfd80$8106f880$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <5A79AF86-A589-406C-BACA-C92333162649@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > My recollection is not off and my statement stands. The judge, after > consulting with counsel for Nortel on the issue, issued a motion for the > auction to commence in which he found that Nortel had the exclusive right to > transfer the addresses. Otherwise he couldn't really sell them in > bankruptcy court. ARIN wouldn?t argue that Nortel as "the party with the exclusive right to sell the addresses"; in fact, that right is specifically provided for all address holders in the L/RSA agreements. The filing in the matter for the auction did not inform the judge of the nature of the registry system, nor did it seek an order to sell the addresses, only permission to hold an auction. It was only when they filed to actually complete the sale that ARIN was notified. > There was nothing about ARIN in that motion, the only > language involving ARIN came after you were finally notified of the auction > and had 30 days to negotiate with Microsoft. On this we agree - ARIN was not notified in advance, or the original auction order would have been much clearer. We have dealt with many bankruptcy matters since that time and are seeing appropriate language now being used. Upon engaging with Microsoft and Nortel, their revised order and amended sale agreement were similarly corrected. To the original point, we have continuously filed to insure that bankruptcy sales are handled in compliance with policy, and that means not allowing transfers contrary to policy - we achieved that outcome in Microsoft/Nortel. I will also note that in Nortel's original filing, Nortel made a claim of a "property interest? (not just rights of use) as well as a claim that legacy numbers are not subject to ARIN's transfer restrictions. Both of these were claims were removed from the revised filings by Nortel; feel free to ask them if you wish to why they chose not to attempt pursuing these claims. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 15:44:37 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:44:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <00ec01d09e2f$d5acfd80$8106f880$@iptrading.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> <7F61937D-1594-437E-B371-845A60B5524B@arin.net> <00ec01d09e2f$d5acfd80$8106f880$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that > Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in that > case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you negotiated > with Microsoft to accept changes to the proposed sale agreement which > provide the fig leaf of cover for ARIN to claim that this was an in-policy > transfer. Exactly. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From mike at iptrading.com Wed Jun 3 16:05:02 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:05:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <5A79AF86-A589-406C-BACA-C92333162649@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> <00b101d09e2a$df062000$9d126000$@iptra ding.com> <7F61937D-1 5 94-437E-B371-845A60B5524B@arin.net> <00ec01d09e2f$d5acfd80$8106f880$@iptrading.com> <5A79AF86-A589-406C-BACA-C92333162649@arin.net> Message-ID: <011201d09e38$93a1b530$bae51f90$@iptrading.com> Hi John, The point remains. You could have argued that no transfer could happen without ARIN approval. But you didn't, instead you had negotiated language added to the sales order which was legally passive and basically dealt with buyer recitals. Why would Nortel object? They got their money. Why would Microsoft object? They got their addresses. But why would ARIN twist itself in knots instead of staking their legal claim at that point? Still no word on the queer justification coincidence? Remember that the addresses were still in use by Nortel at the time of sale and 198,000 of them wouldn't be available until various times in the future, not to go past January 31st, 2012? How can you stand by that justification, especially since Microsoft didn't even advertise the majority of the purchased addresses for a year afterwards? This is what we mean by evidence that ARIN does not truly seek a legal precedent be set on this matter. And this begs the question of your assertion that ARIN "provides" the rights to the address blocks in your conversation with David Conrad. If that were the case, why does ARIN kowtow to legal requirements (a la the L/RSA for Microsoft and other changes you make to comport with bankruptcy requirements) instead of telling the judge to stuff it because ARIN policy defines address holder rights and registry will only be changed by policy? It seems there are these legal rights that exist outside the ARIN registry system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in court. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:34 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > My recollection is not off and my statement stands. The judge, after > consulting with counsel for Nortel on the issue, issued a motion for > the auction to commence in which he found that Nortel had the > exclusive right to transfer the addresses. Otherwise he couldn't > really sell them in bankruptcy court. ARIN wouldn?t argue that Nortel as "the party with the exclusive right to sell the addresses"; in fact, that right is specifically provided for all address holders in the L/RSA agreements. The filing in the matter for the auction did not inform the judge of the nature of the registry system, nor did it seek an order to sell the addresses, only permission to hold an auction. It was only when they filed to actually complete the sale that ARIN was notified. > There was nothing about ARIN in that motion, the only language > involving ARIN came after you were finally notified of the auction and > had 30 days to negotiate with Microsoft. On this we agree - ARIN was not notified in advance, or the original auction order would have been much clearer. We have dealt with many bankruptcy matters since that time and are seeing appropriate language now being used. Upon engaging with Microsoft and Nortel, their revised order and amended sale agreement were similarly corrected. To the original point, we have continuously filed to insure that bankruptcy sales are handled in compliance with policy, and that means not allowing transfers contrary to policy - we achieved that outcome in Microsoft/Nortel. I will also note that in Nortel's original filing, Nortel made a claim of a "property interest? (not just rights of use) as well as a claim that legacy numbers are not subject to ARIN's transfer restrictions. Both of these were claims were removed from the revised filings by Nortel; feel free to ask them if you wish to why they chose not to attempt pursuing these claims. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 16:05:08 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:05:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> <7F61937D-1594-437E-B371-845A60B5524B@arin.net> <00ec01d09e2f$d5acfd80$8106f880$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <55A41FED-BCEC-4ADC-9CFB-29207FC781E5@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote: >> You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that >> Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in that >> case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you negotiated >> with Microsoft to accept changes to the proposed sale agreement which >> provide the fig leaf of cover for ARIN to claim that this was an in-policy >> transfer. > > Exactly. That?s not for ARIN to do - it would have been for Nortel to continue to hold to their original claims of "property interest? and that legacy numbers are not subject to ARIN?s transfer restrictions. Given that they had significant additional address holdings that were to become part of bankruptcy proceedings to follow, there was every incentive for them to pursue such claims, if indeed they felt their arguments had sufficient merit. (I do not believe that they were subscribed to PPML, perhaps the additional legal insights would have made the difference?) Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 16:14:41 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:14:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: Hi Mike, On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Mike Winters wrote: > This has been dragging on for so long, I forget what it was originally > about? Policy "improvements" to facilitate buying addressing in the ARIN region and transferring them to China. I concede fault for being one of the guys who tends to derail discussions into well worn tracks like IP address property rights. If have something to say on the original topic, the mic is open and folks like myself are still listening. And ready to help you be heard if you've something which hasn't already been said. > So if someone is using addresses that are unassigned or assigned by ARIN > (but not used) then the unregistered party would own them. Which means ARIN > and the ?registered user? would be the ones subject to a tortious > interference claim. There's an argument to be made there, at least with respect to the bogons (use of unassigned addresses). With never-registered addresses I'm not sure how you'd establish that your use was more legitimate than anyone else's. It's not tortious interference for me to camp in an open spot in a national park that you promised to your clients. Not my fault that you made a baseless promise. You'd have to express some demonstrable reason that you expected to have consistent exclusive use of the address block. If not registration then what? > Also, your ?natural conclusion? has a major problem, you would have to > completely overlook paragraph 7 of the RSA which clearly states that there > are no property rights. Very true. I suspect this is the most significant hurdle the registrant would have to overcome. The strongest point in the registrant's favor is this: standing in a courtroom, it's not enough for ARIN's council to say what IP addresses aren't. They must, without appearing to the judge to be blithering idiots, explain what IP addresses in fact are and why anyone would pay such sums as they do to obtain them if they are nothing more than integers in a database. The registrant's counsel need only respond that ARIN's wacky and complicated explanation is, in fact, an elaborate lie meant to conceal that IP addresses are exactly what they appear to be: an intangible property with trivially determined dollar value, bought and sold like any other, and a critical component in the operation of a multi-billion dollar industry. And oh-by-the-way, that was a contract of adhesion (courts hate contracts of adhesion) where ARIN had monopoly powers (courts disapprove of monopolies too) to deny addresses if the registrant failed to feign consent. It's a civil case, so the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." Paraphrased, that means: which evidence is more convincing. ARIN presents the RSA, the MOAs and maybe an RFC or two. Seats an expert or two to talk about the IETF, and so on. The registrant objects to the MOAs. Presents newspaper reports of sales, economic analyses of the Internet industry and ARIN's fee schedule. Seats an expert or two to talk about the linchpin role IP addresses play in the Internet business, without which the Internet is impossible. Which explanation of what an IP address is do you figure will make more sense to a judge? Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by an ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant would not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. Should a judge first determine that someone's legacy addresses are intangible property, it becomes a much harder to determine that the rest of the IP addresses aren't. > It additionally says that the holder may not > attempt to obtain or assert any rights over the number resources, so by > going to court and asserting such, you would be in breach of the RSA. I've seen less enforceable provisions that RSA 7c. Short version: this line is pure intimidation. Expect it to have no force in law whatsoever. In contractual terms, it would be "severed" for being "contrary to public policy" because it "seeks to interfere with the administration of justice." In fact, expect ARIN to be sanctioned if they make a serious attempt to push it. Besides, does it not strike you as odd that a registrant would need to be prohibited from seeking property rights if addresses are clearly not property? It all but stipulates that ARIN understands addresses as property to be in open dispute, not the long-settled matter they'd like to present to the judge. ARIN counsel knows this, of course, and will never go beyond rattling sabers. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 16:18:18 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:18:18 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <011201d09e38$93a1b530$bae51f90$@iptrading.com> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <2CFCE368-8A4D-42F7-BB66-DF5E39482DB8@arin.net> <00b101d09e2a$df062000$9d126000$@iptra ding.com> <7F61937D-1 5 94-437E-B371-845A60B5524B@arin.net> <00ec01d09e2f$d5acfd80$8106f880$@iptrading.com> <5A79AF86-A589-406C-BACA-C92333162649@arin.net> <011201d09e38$93a1b530$bae51f90$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <3909AAFF-973D-41AB-9D3A-82422676903E@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > Hi John, > > The point remains. You could have argued that no transfer could happen without ARIN approval. We argued exactly that, and the language to the contrary was removed by the parties. An address block is transferred when the registry entry is updated; if there is a party that wants ARIN to update the entry contrary to policy, then the party that alleges this ?right? must make that argument in court to obtain an order to that effect. > Why would Nortel object? They got their money. See answer to Mr. Herrin earlier regarding significant motivation due to future address blocks to be transferred. > It seems there are these legal rights that exist outside the ARIN registry system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in court. If that?s the case, then excellent - I look forward to seeing these promptly adjudicated as a result of a party making an appropriate claim to that end. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 3 16:48:03 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:48:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> Message-ID: John, > You obviously feel very strongly about this topic, What gave it away? :) > If I understand your view on the matter, you are concerned that current ARIN > registry policy as developed by this community results in ?registry inaccuracy? Not that it does result in inaccuracy, but rather that it can result in inaccuracy. In as much as policy forces a degradation of accuracy of the registry relative to the reality of the use of ARIN resources on the network, I believe the policy to be fundamentally flawed and inappropriate. However, this may be more of an implementation failure than a failure of policy -- it should be possible to implement a policy without degrading the registry database (unless the policy demands that degradation, of course). > I don?t think that you are advocating for ARIN not to follow the community- > developed policy (although you were not quite clear when directly asked that) If the community defines a policy that violates the trust the community has placed in ARIN, then I definitely am advocating that ARIN not follow that policy (community defined or not). For example, if the community defines a policy that requires ARIN to (say) "confiscate" IPv4 addresses from AfriNIC, then yes, I would advocate ARIN not follow the community-developed policy. Would you, as ARIN's CEO, say that policy must be followed? > 1) Are you simply strongly advocating that community on this mailing list should > change the registry policy such that there is no needs-basis for transfers? > > 2) Alternatively, do you believe that the community should not have been allowed > to establish any policy for transfers, as registry policy has historically been with > respect to the allocation/assignment role of the registry, and the ongoing role of > registry administration and maintenance should not have any applicable policy? > > If the latter (#2), would that belief mean that there should also be no policy setting > a minimum block size for transfers or required contact information, etc? There is > some manner in which you feel that ARIN has cast aside proper registry functioning, > and I am trying understand if it is consternation with the ARIN community over their > policy choices or a structural belief regarding the application of registry policy. As I stated previously, my argument is not with the policy related to needs based transfers per se, rather it is with how that policy impacts the registration database. If ARIN wishes to disallow non-needs based transfers, I have no issue -- it is a community decision with plusses and minuses. However, as you may have noted, I strongly believe that _if those transfers still occur despite ARIN policy, the registry must still accurately reflect that transfer_. As I mentioned previously, it would be perfectly acceptable (to me at least) to discontinue services such as IN-ADDR.ARPA, routing registry listing, etc. for that out-of-policy transferred block, but the registration database is a _global_ resource that must be accurately maintained. My unhappiness with ARIN's attempt to create (I'll be polite) a legal framework around the registry database that pretends out-of-ARIN-policy transfers don't exist is exactly that the registry database is global and NOT solely an ARIN resource and ARIN has a responsibility granted by the community when ARIN was formed to ensure the accuracy of their part of that database. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 17:11:02 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:11:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 Message-ID: >>>It seems there are these legal rights that exist outside the ARIN registry system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in court.<<< John>>>>If that?s the case, then excellent - I look forward to seeing these promptly adjudicated as a result of a party making an appropriate claim to that end.<<<< I am really thankful for this discussion thread, as it revisits Microsoft and Nortel and legacy (rights)(?) It only occurs to me now that it may well be in the interest of the community that a legacy allocation party (not Arin) make such a claim in court :) to legal rights. RD On Jun 3, 2015 4:19 PM, wrote: > 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: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (William Herrin) > 2. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (Mike Burns) > 3. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (John Curran) > 4. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (William Herrin) > 5. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (John Curran) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:44:37 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: Mike Burns > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: > Suh8KPb4+YXkN9OiECsYKhW9g70uCpOrY2-AhC+w at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that > > Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in > that > > case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you > negotiated > > with Microsoft to accept changes to the proposed sale agreement which > > provide the fig leaf of cover for ARIN to claim that this was an > in-policy > > transfer. > > Exactly. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:05:02 -0400 > From: "Mike Burns" > To: "'John Curran'" > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: <011201d09e38$93a1b530$bae51f90$@iptrading.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi John, > > The point remains. You could have argued that no transfer could happen > without ARIN approval. > But you didn't, instead you had negotiated language added to the sales > order which was legally passive and basically dealt with buyer recitals. > Why would Nortel object? They got their money. > Why would Microsoft object? They got their addresses. > > But why would ARIN twist itself in knots instead of staking their legal > claim at that point? > > Still no word on the queer justification coincidence? Remember that the > addresses were still in use by Nortel at the time of sale and 198,000 of > them wouldn't be available until various times in the future, not to go > past January 31st, 2012? > > How can you stand by that justification, especially since Microsoft didn't > even advertise the majority of the purchased addresses for a year > afterwards? > > This is what we mean by evidence that ARIN does not truly seek a legal > precedent be set on this matter. > > And this begs the question of your assertion that ARIN "provides" the > rights to the address blocks in your conversation with David Conrad. > If that were the case, why does ARIN kowtow to legal requirements (a la > the L/RSA for Microsoft and other changes you make to comport with > bankruptcy requirements) instead of telling the judge to stuff it because > ARIN policy defines address holder rights and registry will only be changed > by policy? > > It seems there are these legal rights that exist outside the ARIN registry > system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in court. > > Regards, > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:34 PM > To: Mike Burns > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > > On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > My recollection is not off and my statement stands. The judge, after > > consulting with counsel for Nortel on the issue, issued a motion for > > the auction to commence in which he found that Nortel had the > > exclusive right to transfer the addresses. Otherwise he couldn't > > really sell them in bankruptcy court. > > ARIN wouldn?t argue that Nortel as "the party with the exclusive right to > sell the addresses"; in fact, that right is specifically provided for all > address holders > in the L/RSA agreements. The filing in the matter for the auction did > not inform > the judge of the nature of the registry system, nor did it seek an order > to sell the > addresses, only permission to hold an auction. It was only when they > filed to > actually complete the sale that ARIN was notified. > > > There was nothing about ARIN in that motion, the only language > > involving ARIN came after you were finally notified of the auction and > > had 30 days to negotiate with Microsoft. > > On this we agree - ARIN was not notified in advance, or the original > auction order would have been much clearer. We have dealt with many > bankruptcy matters since that time and are seeing appropriate language now > being used. > Upon engaging with Microsoft and Nortel, their revised order and amended > sale agreement were similarly corrected. > > To the original point, we have continuously filed to insure that > bankruptcy sales are handled in compliance with policy, and that means not > allowing transfers contrary to policy - we achieved that outcome in > Microsoft/Nortel. > > I will also note that in Nortel's original filing, Nortel made a claim of > a "property interest? (not just rights of use) as well as a claim that > legacy numbers are not subject to ARIN's transfer restrictions. Both of > these were claims were removed from the revised filings by Nortel; feel > free to ask them if you wish to why they chose not to attempt pursuing > these claims. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:05:08 +0000 > From: John Curran > To: BIll Herrin > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: <55A41FED-BCEC-4ADC-9CFB-29207FC781E5 at arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:44 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > >> You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that > >> Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in > that > >> case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you > negotiated > >> with Microsoft to accept changes to the proposed sale agreement which > >> provide the fig leaf of cover for ARIN to claim that this was an > in-policy > >> transfer. > > > > Exactly. > > That?s not for ARIN to do - it would have been for Nortel to continue to > hold to their > original claims of "property interest? and that legacy numbers are not > subject to ARIN?s > transfer restrictions. Given that they had significant additional address > holdings that > were to become part of bankruptcy proceedings to follow, there was every > incentive for > them to pursue such claims, if indeed they felt their arguments had > sufficient merit. > (I do not believe that they were subscribed to PPML, perhaps the > additional legal > insights would have made the difference?) > > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 16:14:41 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: Mike Winters > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: > fHG0kGP9S1UnrkpFgfTpJEC51mumocdQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi Mike, > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Mike Winters > wrote: > > This has been dragging on for so long, I forget what it was originally > > about? > > Policy "improvements" to facilitate buying addressing in the ARIN > region and transferring them to China. > > I concede fault for being one of the guys who tends to derail > discussions into well worn tracks like IP address property rights. If > have something to say on the original topic, the mic is open and folks > like myself are still listening. And ready to help you be heard if > you've something which hasn't already been said. > > > > So if someone is using addresses that are unassigned or assigned by ARIN > > (but not used) then the unregistered party would own them. Which means > ARIN > > and the ?registered user? would be the ones subject to a tortious > > interference claim. > > There's an argument to be made there, at least with respect to the > bogons (use of unassigned addresses). With never-registered addresses > I'm not sure how you'd establish that your use was more legitimate > than anyone else's. It's not tortious interference for me to camp in > an open spot in a national park that you promised to your clients. Not > my fault that you made a baseless promise. You'd have to express some > demonstrable reason that you expected to have consistent exclusive use > of the address block. If not registration then what? > > > > Also, your ?natural conclusion? has a major problem, you would have to > > completely overlook paragraph 7 of the RSA which clearly states that > there > > are no property rights. > > Very true. I suspect this is the most significant hurdle the > registrant would have to overcome. > > The strongest point in the registrant's favor is this: standing in a > courtroom, it's not enough for ARIN's council to say what IP addresses > aren't. They must, without appearing to the judge to be blithering > idiots, explain what IP addresses in fact are and why anyone would pay > such sums as they do to obtain them if they are nothing more than > integers in a database. > > The registrant's counsel need only respond that ARIN's wacky and > complicated explanation is, in fact, an elaborate lie meant to conceal > that IP addresses are exactly what they appear to be: an intangible > property with trivially determined dollar value, bought and sold like > any other, and a critical component in the operation of a > multi-billion dollar industry. And oh-by-the-way, that was a contract > of adhesion (courts hate contracts of adhesion) where ARIN had > monopoly powers (courts disapprove of monopolies too) to deny > addresses if the registrant failed to feign consent. > > It's a civil case, so the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." > Paraphrased, that means: which evidence is more convincing. ARIN > presents the RSA, the MOAs and maybe an RFC or two. Seats an expert or > two to talk about the IETF, and so on. The registrant objects to the > MOAs. Presents newspaper reports of sales, economic analyses of the > Internet industry and ARIN's fee schedule. Seats an expert or two to > talk about the linchpin role IP addresses play in the Internet > business, without which the Internet is impossible. Which explanation > of what an IP address is do you figure will make more sense to a > judge? > > > Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered > by an ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy > registrant would not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. > Should a judge first determine that someone's legacy addresses are > intangible property, it becomes a much harder to determine that the > rest of the IP addresses aren't. > > > > It additionally says that the holder may not > > attempt to obtain or assert any rights over the number resources, so by > > going to court and asserting such, you would be in breach of the RSA. > > I've seen less enforceable provisions that RSA 7c. Short version: this > line is pure intimidation. Expect it to have no force in law > whatsoever. In contractual terms, it would be "severed" for being > "contrary to public policy" because it "seeks to interfere with the > administration of justice." In fact, expect ARIN to be sanctioned if > they make a serious attempt to push it. > > Besides, does it not strike you as odd that a registrant would need to > be prohibited from seeking property rights if addresses are clearly > not property? It all but stipulates that ARIN understands addresses as > property to be in open dispute, not the long-settled matter they'd > like to present to the judge. > > ARIN counsel knows this, of course, and will never go beyond rattling > sabers. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:18:18 +0000 > From: John Curran > To: Mike Burns > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: <3909AAFF-973D-41AB-9D3A-82422676903E at arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Jun 3, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > > > Hi John, > > > > The point remains. You could have argued that no transfer could happen > without ARIN approval. > > We argued exactly that, and the language to the contrary was removed by > the parties. > > An address block is transferred when the registry entry is updated; if > there is a > party that wants ARIN to update the entry contrary to policy, then the > party that > alleges this ?right? must make that argument in court to obtain an order > to that > effect. > > > Why would Nortel object? They got their money. > > See answer to Mr. Herrin earlier regarding significant motivation due to > future > address blocks to be transferred. > > > It seems there are these legal rights that exist outside the ARIN > registry system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in > court. > > If that?s the case, then excellent - I look forward to seeing these > promptly > adjudicated as a result of a party making an appropriate claim to that end. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > ARIN-PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 20 > ****************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mwinters at edwardrose.com Wed Jun 3 17:19:08 2015 From: mwinters at edwardrose.com (Mike Winters) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:19:08 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: It has been interesting. Trying at times, but interesting. >-----Original Message----- >From: William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] >Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:15 PM >To: Mike Winters >Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List >Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) >> So if someone is using addresses that are unassigned or assigned by >> ARIN (but not used) then the unregistered party would own them. Which >> means ARIN and the ?registered user? would be the ones subject to a >> tortious interference claim. > >There's an argument to be made there, at least with respect to the bogons (use of unassigned addresses). With never-registered addresses I'm not sure how you'd establish that your use was more legitimate than >anyone else's. It's not tortious interference for me to camp in an open spot in a national park that you promised to your clients. Not my fault that you made a baseless promise. You'd have to express some >demonstrable reason that you expected to have consistent exclusive use of the address block. If not registration then what? Again, this is just an interesting possibility. Demonstrable reason: I have been using the addresses for 10 years and now ARIN gives them to someone else causing my business to stop working unexpectedly. Registration or Deed/Title, it is well established that if someone uses your property for long enough, for example they park a truck on it daily or move into a house with or without the owner's permission, they can claim it is theirs and they will usually win. >> Also, your ?natural conclusion? has a major problem, you would have to >> completely overlook paragraph 7 of the RSA which clearly states that >> there are no property rights. > >Very true. I suspect this is the most significant hurdle the registrant would have to overcome. > >The strongest point in the registrant's favor is this: standing in a courtroom, it's not enough for ARIN's council to say what IP addresses aren't. They must, without appearing to the judge to be blithering idiots, explain >what IP addresses in fact are and why anyone would pay such sums as they do to obtain them if they are nothing more than integers in a database. >The registrant's counsel need only respond that ARIN's wacky and complicated explanation is, in fact, an elaborate lie meant to conceal that IP addresses are exactly what they appear to be: an intangible property >with trivially determined dollar value, bought and sold like any other, and a critical component in the operation of a multi-billion dollar industry. And oh-by-the-way, that was a contract of adhesion (courts hate >contracts of adhesion) where ARIN had monopoly powers (courts disapprove of monopolies too) to deny addresses if the registrant failed to feign consent. >It's a civil case, so the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." >Paraphrased, that means: which evidence is more convincing. ARIN presents the RSA, the MOAs and maybe an RFC or two. Seats an expert or two to talk about the IETF, and so on. The registrant objects to the >MOAs. Presents newspaper reports of sales, economic analyses of the Internet industry and ARIN's fee schedule. Seats an expert or two to talk about the linchpin role IP addresses play in the Internet business, >without which the Internet is impossible. Which explanation of what an IP address is do you figure will make more sense to a judge? >Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by an ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant would not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. >Should a judge first determine that someone's legacy addresses are intangible property, it becomes a much harder to determine that the rest of the IP addresses aren't. >> It additionally says that the holder may not attempt to obtain or >> assert any rights over the number resources, so by going to court and >> asserting such, you would be in breach of the RSA. >I've seen less enforceable provisions that RSA 7c. Short version: this line is pure intimidation. Expect it to have no force in law whatsoever. In contractual terms, it would be "severed" for being "contrary to public >policy" because it "seeks to interfere with the administration of justice." In fact, expect ARIN to be sanctioned if they make a serious attempt to push it. >Besides, does it not strike you as odd that a registrant would need to be prohibited from seeking property rights if addresses are clearly not property? It all but stipulates that ARIN understands addresses as property >to be in open dispute, not the long-settled matter they'd like to present to the judge. >ARIN counsel knows this, of course, and will never go beyond rattling sabers. Actually, the LRSA has a similar paragraph (8) that says basically the same thing. Also, ARIN does not say they are not property, only that they are not the property of the holder. If it was determined that they were property, that paragraph would mean that ARIN would maintain ownership, not the holder or any other entity. It would then probably be determined that it is in the best interest of the public that ownership of the RN's should be maintained by ARIN so that they can effectively manage the assignments, recover address space, etc. If ownership were to transfer, then how would you handle (among other things) businesses that shut down but did not sell the resource? That block could become unavailable forever - or at least until someone realized what they inherited. While that would not be in the public interest, it could make for an interesting episode of "Antiques Roadshow". Hey mom! Look what I found in the attic! :) >Regards, >Bill Herrin Mike -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 17:24:39 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:24:39 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: Mike - Ultimately, they build courtrooms to resolve legal matters, and perhaps someday we will see some of the interesting legal perspectives that are shared on PPML actually tested in court? (I particularly like the title/use reference, and will comment shortly) It is sufficient to note that parties seeking an order for ARIN to update the registry contrary to the community policy have some very significant hurdles to overcome - i.e. we remain confident in our ability to maintain the registry per community policy and hopefully PPML will return to discussions about how to we go about improving that policy. Thanks for wading into the discussion - always good to see new participants! :-) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Jun 3, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Mike Winters > wrote: It has been interesting. Trying at times, but interesting. -----Original Message----- From: William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:15 PM To: Mike Winters Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) So if someone is using addresses that are unassigned or assigned by ARIN (but not used) then the unregistered party would own them. Which means ARIN and the ?registered user? would be the ones subject to a tortious interference claim. There's an argument to be made there, at least with respect to the bogons (use of unassigned addresses). With never-registered addresses I'm not sure how you'd establish that your use was more legitimate than >anyone else's. It's not tortious interference for me to camp in an open spot in a national park that you promised to your clients. Not my fault that you made a baseless promise. You'd have to express some >demonstrable reason that you expected to have consistent exclusive use of the address block. If not registration then what? Again, this is just an interesting possibility. Demonstrable reason: I have been using the addresses for 10 years and now ARIN gives them to someone else causing my business to stop working unexpectedly. Registration or Deed/Title, it is well established that if someone uses your property for long enough, for example they park a truck on it daily or move into a house with or without the owner's permission, they can claim it is theirs and they will usually win. Also, your ?natural conclusion? has a major problem, you would have to completely overlook paragraph 7 of the RSA which clearly states that there are no property rights. Very true. I suspect this is the most significant hurdle the registrant would have to overcome. The strongest point in the registrant's favor is this: standing in a courtroom, it's not enough for ARIN's council to say what IP addresses aren't. They must, without appearing to the judge to be blithering idiots, explain >what IP addresses in fact are and why anyone would pay such sums as they do to obtain them if they are nothing more than integers in a database. The registrant's counsel need only respond that ARIN's wacky and complicated explanation is, in fact, an elaborate lie meant to conceal that IP addresses are exactly what they appear to be: an intangible property >with trivially determined dollar value, bought and sold like any other, and a critical component in the operation of a multi-billion dollar industry. And oh-by-the-way, that was a contract of adhesion (courts hate >contracts of adhesion) where ARIN had monopoly powers (courts disapprove of monopolies too) to deny addresses if the registrant failed to feign consent. It's a civil case, so the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." Paraphrased, that means: which evidence is more convincing. ARIN presents the RSA, the MOAs and maybe an RFC or two. Seats an expert or two to talk about the IETF, and so on. The registrant objects to the >MOAs. Presents newspaper reports of sales, economic analyses of the Internet industry and ARIN's fee schedule. Seats an expert or two to talk about the linchpin role IP addresses play in the Internet business, >without which the Internet is impossible. Which explanation of what an IP address is do you figure will make more sense to a judge? Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by an ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant would not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. Should a judge first determine that someone's legacy addresses are intangible property, it becomes a much harder to determine that the rest of the IP addresses aren't. It additionally says that the holder may not attempt to obtain or assert any rights over the number resources, so by going to court and asserting such, you would be in breach of the RSA. I've seen less enforceable provisions that RSA 7c. Short version: this line is pure intimidation. Expect it to have no force in law whatsoever. In contractual terms, it would be "severed" for being "contrary to public >policy" because it "seeks to interfere with the administration of justice." In fact, expect ARIN to be sanctioned if they make a serious attempt to push it. Besides, does it not strike you as odd that a registrant would need to be prohibited from seeking property rights if addresses are clearly not property? It all but stipulates that ARIN understands addresses as property >to be in open dispute, not the long-settled matter they'd like to present to the judge. ARIN counsel knows this, of course, and will never go beyond rattling sabers. Actually, the LRSA has a similar paragraph (8) that says basically the same thing. Also, ARIN does not say they are not property, only that they are not the property of the holder. If it was determined that they were property, that paragraph would mean that ARIN would maintain ownership, not the holder or any other entity. It would then probably be determined that it is in the best interest of the public that ownership of the RN's should be maintained by ARIN so that they can effectively manage the assignments, recover address space, etc. If ownership were to transfer, then how would you handle (among other things) businesses that shut down but did not sell the resource? That block could become unavailable forever - or at least until someone realized what they inherited. While that would not be in the public interest, it could make for an interesting episode of "Antiques Roadshow". Hey mom! Look what I found in the attic! :) Regards, Bill Herrin Mike -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: _______________________________________________ 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 matthew at matthew.at Wed Jun 3 17:46:30 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:46:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: <556F75B6.5040907@matthew.at> On 6/3/2015 1:14 PM, William Herrin wrote: > Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered > by an ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy > registrant would not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. As a holder of legacy address space, I really had no interest in having ARIN take over the registry that held the records of those assignments, but as long as they were correct, I grudgingly accepted that outcome (interestingly, ARIN then managed to subsequently change the records for one of the blocks even though such a change was never requested.. it actually made consolidating my holdings easier, but it shouldn't have happened). I am pretty certain that I can sell these addresses to whomever I want, whenever I want. It does appear that if/when I do, ARIN may choose to not update the records in the database they've chosen to maintain (and others have chosen to depend upon) of legacy address registrations. That will be bad for the accuracy of that database, and might make the buyer a little nervous, but with a bill of sale with my signature on it, they should be fine, and perfectly able to use the addresses internally and to announce them on the global Internet. Or the buyer might instead choose to sign a contract with ARIN and have the records updated in accordance with policy. That'd be fine too, but as a seller of legacy space I could really not care less. Matthew Kaufman From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 17:47:03 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:47:03 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 4:48 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > John, > >> You obviously feel very strongly about this topic, > > What gave it away? :) > >> If I understand your view on the matter, you are concerned that current ARIN >> registry policy as developed by this community results in ?registry inaccuracy? > > Not that it does result in inaccuracy, but rather that it can result in inaccuracy. In as much as policy forces a degradation of accuracy of the registry relative to the reality of the use of ARIN resources on the network, I believe the policy to be fundamentally flawed and inappropriate. However, this may be more of an implementation failure than a failure of policy -- it should be possible to implement a policy without degrading the registry database (unless the policy demands that degradation, of course). Acknowledged. > >> I don?t think that you are advocating for ARIN not to follow the community- >> developed policy (although you were not quite clear when directly asked that) > > If the community defines a policy that violates the trust the community has placed in ARIN, then I definitely am advocating that ARIN not follow that policy (community defined or not). For example, if the community defines a policy that requires ARIN to (say) "confiscate" IPv4 addresses from AfriNIC, then yes, I would advocate ARIN not follow the community-developed policy. Would you, as ARIN's CEO, say that policy must be followed? In our particular policy development process, there is a specific check where the Board confirms that the policy advances ARIN's mission, does not create unreasonable fiduciary or liability risk, is be consistent with ARIN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and all applicable laws and regulations. Ergo, I would hope that a policy that violates the ARIN?s mission (including the trust of the community) would not be ratified - this would have the convenient effect of having an elected body make that ultimate determination rather than myself as CEO. Once ratified by the Board, I do believe that the community expects the ARIN staff to faithfully follow the policy as written. >> 1) Are you simply strongly advocating that community on this mailing list should >> change the registry policy such that there is no needs-basis for transfers? >> >> 2) Alternatively, do you believe that the community should not have been allowed >> to establish any policy for transfers, as registry policy has historically been with >> respect to the allocation/assignment role of the registry, and the ongoing role of >> registry administration and maintenance should not have any applicable policy? >> >> If the latter (#2), would that belief mean that there should also be no policy setting >> a minimum block size for transfers or required contact information, etc? There is >> some manner in which you feel that ARIN has cast aside proper registry functioning, >> and I am trying understand if it is consternation with the ARIN community over their >> policy choices or a structural belief regarding the application of registry policy. > > As I stated previously, my argument is not with the policy related to needs based transfers per se, rather it is with how that policy impacts the registration database. If ARIN wishes to disallow non-needs based transfers, I have no issue -- it is a community decision with plusses and minuses. Thanks for the clarity in your response? very helpful. It appears that we have a common belief that the community has the ability to set policy for the registry, including with respect to transfers. > However, as you may have noted, I strongly believe that _if those transfers still occur despite ARIN policy, the registry must still accurately reflect that transfer_. Okay, I think I see the area of disconnect, and it is with respect to the above point. Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the transfer fee, etc?) Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively ?possession? of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer, that the registry has to eventually reflect reality? (just trying to understand your nuance regarding issue being with the impact to the database, not the policy itself per se) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From matthew at matthew.at Wed Jun 3 17:48:54 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:48:54 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <556F7646.9010101@matthew.at> On 6/3/2015 1:48 PM, David Conrad wrote: > My unhappiness with ARIN's attempt to create (I'll be polite) a legal > framework around the registry database that pretends > out-of-ARIN-policy transfers don't exist is exactly that the registry > database is global and NOT solely an ARIN resource and ARIN has a > responsibility granted by the community when ARIN was formed to ensure > the accuracy of their part of that database. You could certainly argue (and I might) that the records of legacy assignments were in fact entrusted to ARIN to keep, and keep updated *whether or not the community drafted policy that said such updates were disallowed* Matthew Kaufman From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 18:06:34 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:06:34 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning In-Reply-To: <556F7646.9010101@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <556F7646.9010101@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: ... You could certainly argue (and I might) that the records of legacy assignments were in fact entrusted to ARIN to keep, and keep updated *whether or not the community drafted policy that said such updates were disallowed* Noting just one of the significant problems with that argument being that at the time of ARIN?s formation, the actual applicable registry policy was RFC 2050 (having been finished just a year earlier with folks like David Conrad and Jon Postel as authors) - it states that those obtaining addresses via transfer must "meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the Internet Registry." I.E., If we were maintain the exact status quo that such parties had prior to ARIN?s formation, recognized ARIN is entrusted to maintain that, then folks probably would not like the result - today?s transfer policy is more lenient than the transfer policy at that point in time. (Thank an ARIN Advisory Council member when you next see them for all of their efforts getting useful transfer policy in the Number Resource Policy Manual! :-) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 18:24:25 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:24:25 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:15 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication of an ?exclusive right to use? accompanying the number registry. Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a precedence-based presumption about the determination of who is the ?interfering party? in a case where interference exists. However, an exclusive right to use would go further than that. > > Hi Owen, > > That's possible. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on a judge not > following the path from tortious interference to its natural > conclusion: that a block of Internet addresses is documentary > intangible property under common law, subject to centuries of well > understood precedent over folks' rights. When in doubt, what quacks > like a duck is a duck. > > >> As an example, if Company A has a registration for 1.2.3.0/24 and uses it entirely on their internal network without advertising it to the internet and Company B also uses it on their internal network without advertising it, there are then at least two possible legal scenarios? >> >> Scenario 1, A?s registration includes an exclusive right to use. In this case, if A were to learn of B?s usage, they may well have a civil claim against B for violating that exclusive right to use. A case for tortious interference really doesn?t exist here because there is no interference. >> >> Scenario 2, which I believe is applicable in this case? Since B?s use does not interfere with A?s use, there is no interference and no case for tortious interference exists. > > I think you've offered a pretty tortured chain of logic. A far simpler > explanation is that the rights in question are constrained to the > public Internet. IP addresses are more than integers only when they > appear in someone's Internet routing table. The law is long familiar > with intangibles whose existence is bound by context. Indeed, the law > already has excessive precedent establishing the number on a bank > check as an intangible property, but only in a specific context. > > >> Thus, the possibility of a case of tortious interference alone is insufficient to prove a right to exclusive use. > > Perhaps. Time will tell. > >> There is precedence for this in the Amateur radio system as well. Nobody has >> any exclusive rights to frequencies or frequency pairs used for repeaters. >> However, a repeater which is registered and allocated frequency pairs by the >> local repeater coordinator (a non-government body, similar, but not identical >> to ARIN) gets interference from a repeater which is not ?coordinated?, the >> FCC will side with the coordinated repeater and ask the non-coordinated >> repeater to take steps to resolve the interference. > > Dubious as precedent. Regulation of Ham radio frequencies flows > directly from current federal statute. The only vaguely comparable > source of governmental authority regarding Internet routing stems from > a National Science Foundation research project that ended 20 years ago > with something that could be reasonably described as abandonment. > More, during the project's run, the NSF failed to offer any guidance > that was particularly on point for this debate. > > >> Like it or not, the internet is held together by good will and cooperation. >> The high level of cooperation from ISPs with the RIR system is what >> gives registration in the RIR system meaning and not some sort of >> government-like power or army of enforcement officers. > > All common law starts as a violation of some mass-respected convention > of human behavior that victims choose to challenge in court. At which > point the court fits the facts into the nearest framework precedent > provides. The decisions the judge makes then establish the new > precedent, the new law, that governs how similar sets of facts are > treated in future cases. Such law endures until and unless overridden > by statute. > > I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense > within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks > are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't > help but notice that when ARIN has been in court, counsel has been in > no rush to induce a judge to clarify the matter. Indeed ARIN appears > to have sought every other avenue in which each case could be > concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. > > I think ARIN counsel is far less confident of prevailing on the > address-aren't-property claim than John lets on. And I think he has > good reason for concern. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > _______________________________________________ > 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 3 18:25:27 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:25:27 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Mike Winters wrote: > Demonstrable reason: I have been using the addresses for 10 years and now ARIN gives them to someone else causing my business to stop working unexpectedly. > Registration or Deed/Title, it is well established that if someone uses your property for long enough, for example they park a truck on it daily or move into a house with or without the owner's permission, they can claim it is theirs and they will usually win. Hi Mike, Adverse possession. Squatters rights. As I understand it, it's 20 years in most jurisdictions. Adverse possession can get a little tricky. For one thing, there's a requirement that a responsible owner know or have reason to know that you in particular have possession of the property. So you can't steal a painting, tuck it into a closet and then say you own it because you stole it more than 20 years ago. For another, it has to be adverse. If the owner tells you it's OK for you to use the property until he decides differently, his ownership is reasserted and can not fall to you regardless of how many years pass. And of course I imagine it would be tricky to argue adverse possession at the same time as you argue that the property exists at all. > Actually, the LRSA has a similar paragraph (8) that says basically the same thing. An underwhelming minority of legacy registrants have signed the LRSA. The rest of us (slightly less than all) hold the addresses without any contract with ARIN. > Also, ARIN does not say they are not property, only that they are not the property of the holder. Huh. You're right, I missed that. 7a only says that holder agrees that the number resources are not the property of holder. And the assertion that number resources are not property only appears with respect to IPv6 addresses in 6.4.1 in the NRPM. I would have sworn it used to say that all number resources are not property. > If it was determined that they were property, that paragraph would > mean that ARIN would maintain ownership, not the holder or any > other entity. Neat trap! LRSA signers, aren't you glad you signed the LRSA? All your IP are belong to ARIN. I'll have to put some thought into this one. With ARIN persistently disclaiming ownership (indeed persistently disclaiming the possibility of ownership) I expect there are ways around it. Could also be some real antitrust problems if addresses were found to be property and ARIN claimed ownership of all allocated or assigned under RSA. > how would you handle (among other things) businesses that shut down but did not sell the resource? Escheat. It escheats to the state who, upon realizing they have an asset, auctions it off. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 18:36:40 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:36:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: Never mind, you're not talking copyright. I would think the issue would be translated into some concrete aspect of the situation and what either formal or informal practices have been. At best. But I think abstraction as such gets a strong assumption it isn't "owned," in any body of law in the US unless some statutory basis has been created. So it would be more what are the regular practices that can be discerned for the way these things are done with the information, not some exclusive right associated with the information as such. Information is free. Unless there's a statutory basis otherwise. And some harms are barred in use of information. That's the way it works. (i.e., the situation is really not "information wants to be free" -- it just is free, unless there's for instance, a copyright -- which we wouldn't have for a number. Perhaps a trademark in a very unique situation, but I'd guess not even then. This is really what the "third party" doctrine really means -- you give someone information, you really don't have control over it, because it's essentially published. Unless you have an NDA. Or unless, if the third party is a telecom, you're actually recognized as performing a public function -- in which case, fundamental right limits can apply against you as they would apply against the government. Smith v. Maryland was about the fact that Verizon was regarded as a private party, not really about the fact that the data in question was metadata. It might well be decided differently today, if Verizon is regarded as a public utility. Seth On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as > an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:15 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication of an ?exclusive right to use? accompanying the number registry. Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a precedence-based presumption about the determination of who is the ?interfering party? in a case where interference exists. However, an exclusive right to use would go further than that. >> >> Hi Owen, >> >> That's possible. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on a judge not >> following the path from tortious interference to its natural >> conclusion: that a block of Internet addresses is documentary >> intangible property under common law, subject to centuries of well >> understood precedent over folks' rights. When in doubt, what quacks >> like a duck is a duck. >> >> >>> As an example, if Company A has a registration for 1.2.3.0/24 and uses it entirely on their internal network without advertising it to the internet and Company B also uses it on their internal network without advertising it, there are then at least two possible legal scenarios? >>> >>> Scenario 1, A?s registration includes an exclusive right to use. In this case, if A were to learn of B?s usage, they may well have a civil claim against B for violating that exclusive right to use. A case for tortious interference really doesn?t exist here because there is no interference. >>> >>> Scenario 2, which I believe is applicable in this case? Since B?s use does not interfere with A?s use, there is no interference and no case for tortious interference exists. >> >> I think you've offered a pretty tortured chain of logic. A far simpler >> explanation is that the rights in question are constrained to the >> public Internet. IP addresses are more than integers only when they >> appear in someone's Internet routing table. The law is long familiar >> with intangibles whose existence is bound by context. Indeed, the law >> already has excessive precedent establishing the number on a bank >> check as an intangible property, but only in a specific context. >> >> >>> Thus, the possibility of a case of tortious interference alone is insufficient to prove a right to exclusive use. >> >> Perhaps. Time will tell. >> >>> There is precedence for this in the Amateur radio system as well. Nobody has >>> any exclusive rights to frequencies or frequency pairs used for repeaters. >>> However, a repeater which is registered and allocated frequency pairs by the >>> local repeater coordinator (a non-government body, similar, but not identical >>> to ARIN) gets interference from a repeater which is not ?coordinated?, the >>> FCC will side with the coordinated repeater and ask the non-coordinated >>> repeater to take steps to resolve the interference. >> >> Dubious as precedent. Regulation of Ham radio frequencies flows >> directly from current federal statute. The only vaguely comparable >> source of governmental authority regarding Internet routing stems from >> a National Science Foundation research project that ended 20 years ago >> with something that could be reasonably described as abandonment. >> More, during the project's run, the NSF failed to offer any guidance >> that was particularly on point for this debate. >> >> >>> Like it or not, the internet is held together by good will and cooperation. >>> The high level of cooperation from ISPs with the RIR system is what >>> gives registration in the RIR system meaning and not some sort of >>> government-like power or army of enforcement officers. >> >> All common law starts as a violation of some mass-respected convention >> of human behavior that victims choose to challenge in court. At which >> point the court fits the facts into the nearest framework precedent >> provides. The decisions the judge makes then establish the new >> precedent, the new law, that governs how similar sets of facts are >> treated in future cases. Such law endures until and unless overridden >> by statute. >> >> I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense >> within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks >> are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't >> help but notice that when ARIN has been in court, counsel has been in >> no rush to induce a judge to clarify the matter. Indeed ARIN appears >> to have sought every other avenue in which each case could be >> concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. >> >> I think ARIN counsel is far less confident of prevailing on the >> address-aren't-property claim than John lets on. And I think he has >> good reason for concern. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 3 18:38:08 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:38:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as > an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. Hi Seth, IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of *intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in the U.S., from the Constitution itself. I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere else in the ARIN region as well. Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't begin to speculate how IP addresses fit. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 18:39:32 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:39:32 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > Never mind, you're not talking copyright. > > I would think the issue would be translated into some concrete aspect > of the situation and what either formal or informal practices have > been. At best. But I think abstraction as such gets a strong > assumption it isn't "owned," in any body of law in the US unless some > statutory basis has been created. So it would be more what are the > regular practices that can be discerned for the way these things are > done with the information, not some exclusive right associated with > the information as such. > > Information is free. Unless there's a statutory basis otherwise. And > some harms are barred in use of information. That's the way it works. > (i.e., the situation is really not "information wants to be free" -- > it just is free, unless there's for instance, a copyright -- which we > wouldn't have for a number. Perhaps a trademark in a very unique > situation, but I'd guess not even then. This is really what the > "third party" doctrine really means -- you give someone information, > you really don't have control over it, because it's essentially > published. Unless you have an NDA. Editing some pronouns for clarity: Or unless, if the third party is a telecom, they're actually recognized as performing a public function -- in which case, fundamental right limits can apply against them as they would apply against the government. Smith v. Maryland was about the fact that Verizon was regarded as a private party, not really about the fact that the data in question was metadata. It might well be decided differently today, if Verizon is regarded as a public utility.) > > > Seth > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as >> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. >> >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:15 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication of an ?exclusive right to use? accompanying the number registry. Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a precedence-based presumption about the determination of who is the ?interfering party? in a case where interference exists. However, an exclusive right to use would go further than that. >>> >>> Hi Owen, >>> >>> That's possible. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on a judge not >>> following the path from tortious interference to its natural >>> conclusion: that a block of Internet addresses is documentary >>> intangible property under common law, subject to centuries of well >>> understood precedent over folks' rights. When in doubt, what quacks >>> like a duck is a duck. >>> >>> >>>> As an example, if Company A has a registration for 1.2.3.0/24 and uses it entirely on their internal network without advertising it to the internet and Company B also uses it on their internal network without advertising it, there are then at least two possible legal scenarios? >>>> >>>> Scenario 1, A?s registration includes an exclusive right to use. In this case, if A were to learn of B?s usage, they may well have a civil claim against B for violating that exclusive right to use. A case for tortious interference really doesn?t exist here because there is no interference. >>>> >>>> Scenario 2, which I believe is applicable in this case? Since B?s use does not interfere with A?s use, there is no interference and no case for tortious interference exists. >>> >>> I think you've offered a pretty tortured chain of logic. A far simpler >>> explanation is that the rights in question are constrained to the >>> public Internet. IP addresses are more than integers only when they >>> appear in someone's Internet routing table. The law is long familiar >>> with intangibles whose existence is bound by context. Indeed, the law >>> already has excessive precedent establishing the number on a bank >>> check as an intangible property, but only in a specific context. >>> >>> >>>> Thus, the possibility of a case of tortious interference alone is insufficient to prove a right to exclusive use. >>> >>> Perhaps. Time will tell. >>> >>>> There is precedence for this in the Amateur radio system as well. Nobody has >>>> any exclusive rights to frequencies or frequency pairs used for repeaters. >>>> However, a repeater which is registered and allocated frequency pairs by the >>>> local repeater coordinator (a non-government body, similar, but not identical >>>> to ARIN) gets interference from a repeater which is not ?coordinated?, the >>>> FCC will side with the coordinated repeater and ask the non-coordinated >>>> repeater to take steps to resolve the interference. >>> >>> Dubious as precedent. Regulation of Ham radio frequencies flows >>> directly from current federal statute. The only vaguely comparable >>> source of governmental authority regarding Internet routing stems from >>> a National Science Foundation research project that ended 20 years ago >>> with something that could be reasonably described as abandonment. >>> More, during the project's run, the NSF failed to offer any guidance >>> that was particularly on point for this debate. >>> >>> >>>> Like it or not, the internet is held together by good will and cooperation. >>>> The high level of cooperation from ISPs with the RIR system is what >>>> gives registration in the RIR system meaning and not some sort of >>>> government-like power or army of enforcement officers. >>> >>> All common law starts as a violation of some mass-respected convention >>> of human behavior that victims choose to challenge in court. At which >>> point the court fits the facts into the nearest framework precedent >>> provides. The decisions the judge makes then establish the new >>> precedent, the new law, that governs how similar sets of facts are >>> treated in future cases. Such law endures until and unless overridden >>> by statute. >>> >>> I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense >>> within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks >>> are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't >>> help but notice that when ARIN has been in court, counsel has been in >>> no rush to induce a judge to clarify the matter. Indeed ARIN appears >>> to have sought every other avenue in which each case could be >>> concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. >>> >>> I think ARIN counsel is far less confident of prevailing on the >>> address-aren't-property claim than John lets on. And I think he has >>> good reason for concern. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bill Herrin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >>> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 iptrading.com Wed Jun 3 18:41:09 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:41:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) References: Message-ID: <0DAAE230732E41318CD3819AA4CB8F88@ncsscfoipoxes4> Appropos to this turn of the discussion: I have heard from a lawyer that the ARIN RSA would have difficulty being enforced as a contract due to issues related to ARIN's Virginia non-profit status and also due to the fact that one side of the contract reserves the unilateral rights to change the contract. That's not like any contract I'm familiar with. One side is bound to contract terms and the other is bound to ....nothing. Seems like nearly coercive power is required to get a contract like that. Take it for what it's worth, I am not a lawyer myself, but there are some other issues with the legal standing of the RSA and pace Mr. Curran I don't believe ARIN is anxious to try things in court. After all, the RSA allowed for revokation for lack of utilization for years. Can anybody show me where ARIN utilized this RSA power in court? Regards, Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Winters" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > It has been interesting. Trying at times, but interesting. > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] >>Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:15 PM >>To: Mike Winters >>Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List >>Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > >>> So if someone is using addresses that are unassigned or assigned by >>> ARIN (but not used) then the unregistered party would own them. Which >>> means ARIN and the ?registered user? would be the ones subject to a >>> tortious interference claim. >> >>There's an argument to be made there, at least with respect to the bogons (use of unassigned addresses). With never-registered addresses I'm not sure how you'd establish that your use was more legitimate than >anyone else's. It's not tortious interference for me to camp in an open spot in a national park that you promised to your clients. Not my fault that you made a baseless promise. You'd have to express some >demonstrable reason that you expected to have consistent exclusive use of the address block. If not registration then what? > > Again, this is just an interesting possibility. > Demonstrable reason: I have been using the addresses for 10 years and now ARIN gives them to someone else causing my business to stop working unexpectedly. > Registration or Deed/Title, it is well established that if someone uses your property for long enough, for example they park a truck on it daily or move into a house with or without the owner's permission, they can claim it is theirs and they will usually win. > > >>> Also, your ?natural conclusion? has a major problem, you would have to >>> completely overlook paragraph 7 of the RSA which clearly states that >>> there are no property rights. >> >>Very true. I suspect this is the most significant hurdle the registrant would have to overcome. >> >>The strongest point in the registrant's favor is this: standing in a courtroom, it's not enough for ARIN's council to say what IP addresses aren't. They must, without appearing to the judge to be blithering idiots, explain >what IP addresses in fact are and why anyone would pay such sums as they do to obtain them if they are nothing more than integers in a database. > >>The registrant's counsel need only respond that ARIN's wacky and complicated explanation is, in fact, an elaborate lie meant to conceal that IP addresses are exactly what they appear to be: an intangible property >with trivially determined dollar value, bought and sold like any other, and a critical component in the operation of a multi-billion dollar industry. And oh-by-the-way, that was a contract of adhesion (courts hate >contracts of adhesion) where ARIN had monopoly powers (courts disapprove of monopolies too) to deny addresses if the registrant failed to feign consent. > >>It's a civil case, so the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." >>Paraphrased, that means: which evidence is more convincing. ARIN presents the RSA, the MOAs and maybe an RFC or two. Seats an expert or two to talk about the IETF, and so on. The registrant objects to the >MOAs. Presents newspaper reports of sales, economic analyses of the Internet industry and ARIN's fee schedule. Seats an expert or two to talk about the linchpin role IP addresses play in the Internet business, >without which the Internet is impossible. Which explanation of what an IP address is do you figure will make more sense to a judge? > > >>Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by an ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant would not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. >>Should a judge first determine that someone's legacy addresses are intangible property, it becomes a much harder to determine that the rest of the IP addresses aren't. > > >>> It additionally says that the holder may not attempt to obtain or >>> assert any rights over the number resources, so by going to court and >>> asserting such, you would be in breach of the RSA. > >>I've seen less enforceable provisions that RSA 7c. Short version: this line is pure intimidation. Expect it to have no force in law whatsoever. In contractual terms, it would be "severed" for being "contrary to public >policy" because it "seeks to interfere with the administration of justice." In fact, expect ARIN to be sanctioned if they make a serious attempt to push it. > >>Besides, does it not strike you as odd that a registrant would need to be prohibited from seeking property rights if addresses are clearly not property? It all but stipulates that ARIN understands addresses as property >to be in open dispute, not the long-settled matter they'd like to present to the judge. > >>ARIN counsel knows this, of course, and will never go beyond rattling sabers. > > > Actually, the LRSA has a similar paragraph (8) that says basically the same thing. > > Also, ARIN does not say they are not property, only that they are not the property of the holder. > > If it was determined that they were property, that paragraph would mean that ARIN would maintain ownership, not the holder or any other entity. > It would then probably be determined that it is in the best interest of the public that ownership of the RN's should be maintained by ARIN so that they can effectively manage the assignments, recover address space, etc. If ownership were to transfer, then how would you handle (among other things) businesses that shut down but did not sell the resource? That block could become unavailable forever - or at least until someone realized what they inherited. While that would not be in the public interest, it could make for an interesting episode of "Antiques Roadshow". Hey mom! Look what I found in the attic! :) > > >>Regards, >>Bill Herrin > > Mike > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > _______________________________________________ > 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 18:42:18 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:42:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- and statutes giving property in information aren't really something that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were accorded to Congress to grant. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:38 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as >> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. > > Hi Seth, > > IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or > trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of > *intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in > the U.S., from the Constitution itself. > > I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something > else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which > includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere > else in the ARIN region as well. > > Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common > Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't > begin to speculate how IP addresses fit. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 18:50:40 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:50:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: <1263D8D2-BAFA-4CE9-B686-4C25DC71B822@corp.arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 6:25 PM, William Herrin > wrote: ... Neat trap! LRSA signers, aren't you glad you signed the LRSA? All your IP are belong to ARIN. I'll have to put some thought into this one. Bill - I?ll spare you the effort, since (as far as I know) it wouldn?t be ARIN being the ?owner? in any case? If (in an alternate world) IP addresses were to be deemed to be freehold property rather than simply a specific set of rights, then it is quite likely that they would be USG property (dependent upon a rather interesting and convoluted set of agreements that led to their development.) Some contractors may have a potential claim as well; good luck with that. Under the ?IP property" worldview, all of us (and I mean everyone) has been making use of US Government IP addresses, all of which the USG has gone along with because it facilitates various USG goals regarding the Internet. Since only the GSA and DoD can actually dispose of US government property, and even that has to be done via strict processes, it is quite unlikely that anyone can claim that the USG has ever sold some IP address ?property? to them? In either case, ARIN administers the registry in accordance with the "United States Government?s Internet Protocol Numbering Principles?, a copy of which may be found here - Enjoy, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 19:00:17 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to > information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- > and statutes giving property in information aren't really something > that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were > accorded to Congress to grant. (and I am not one to call these rights "property," specifically because so much confusion has been wrought about information as a result of the notion that statutory exclusive rights such as copyright are "intellectual property." You only find the term "intellectual property" advocated in France, before about 1980. They're exclusive rights. There are a few of those things that have been accorded to authors. :-) ) > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:38 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as >>> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. >> >> Hi Seth, >> >> IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or >> trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of >> *intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in >> the U.S., from the Constitution itself. >> >> I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something >> else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which >> includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere >> else in the ARIN region as well. >> >> Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common >> Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't >> begin to speculate how IP addresses fit. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 19:29:48 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:29:48 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to > information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- > and statutes giving property in information aren't really something > that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were > accorded to Congress to grant. Hi Seth, Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday activities, you probably don't even know its there. Take a bank check, for example. You hold a bank check written out to you for $100. What do you own? Do you own a slip of paper? No, that's silly. You own a promise of payment in the amount of $100, as documented by the bank check. That promise is a form of property called "documentary intangible property." You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute that was ever written. Anyway, look it up. Common Law. Documentary Intangible Property. We live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any legislature and most of us don't even realize it. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 19:46:27 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:46:27 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <1263D8D2-BAFA-4CE9-B686-4C25DC71B822@corp.arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <1263D8D2-BAFA-4CE9-B686-4C25DC71B822@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:50 PM, John Curran wrote: > If (in an alternate world) IP addresses were to be deemed to be freehold > property rather > than simply a specific set of rights, then it is quite likely that they > would be USG property > (dependent upon a rather interesting and convoluted set of agreements that > led to their > development.) Some contractors may have a potential claim as well; good luck > with that. Hi John, I've considered that possibility over the past few years. I don't think it holds water. Direct USG involvement in routing and addressing ended with the NSFnet contract two decades ago when they walked away abandoning everything to the various organizations which wished to keep the Internet running. Despite fancy words from the NTIA, they have no statutory authority to control Internet addressing nor any statutory authority to assert ownership of IP addresses on behalf of the USG. And unlike us mere mortals, the executive agencies' authority derives solely from statute. My bet: if a judge finds IP addresses to be property, no part of the USG will show up to even attempt to stake a claim. It'll be kid gloves all around with statements expressing concern for the continued orderly operation of the Internet. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 3 20:04:28 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:04:28 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: <556F75B6.5040907@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <556F75B6.5040907@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/3/2015 1:14 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> >> Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by an >> ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant would >> not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. > > As a holder of legacy address space, I really had no interest in having ARIN > take over the registry that held the records of those assignments, but as > long as they were correct, I grudgingly accepted that outcome > (interestingly, ARIN then managed to subsequently change the records for one > of the blocks even though such a change was never requested.. it actually > made consolidating my holdings easier, but it shouldn't have happened). Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous about it. Should even be easier than a normal RIR since a legacy registry would have no need for number allocations from IANA. And now that IPv4 addresses have a significant monetary value, I'd like to think we could find the funding to operate such a registry as well. That way we could get rid of the periodic legacy v. RSA battles that infest our policy discussions. The legacy registrants would have whatever policy they wanted to have at the legacy registrar and that would be the end of it. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 20:05:55 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:05:55 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: That would be credit, negotiability, etc. Not a right in information. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:29 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to >> information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- >> and statutes giving property in information aren't really something >> that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were >> accorded to Congress to grant. > > Hi Seth, > > Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday > activities, you probably don't even know its there. > > Take a bank check, for example. You hold a bank check written out to > you for $100. What do you own? Do you own a slip of paper? No, that's > silly. You own a promise of payment in the amount of $100, as > documented by the bank check. > > That promise is a form of property called "documentary intangible > property." You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's > because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute > that was ever written. > > Anyway, look it up. Common Law. Documentary Intangible Property. We > live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any > legislature and most of us don't even realize it. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 3 20:31:23 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 00:31:23 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <556F75B6.5040907@matthew.at> Message-ID: <71862D01-B51E-49C6-8BFA-4ADBB139E5FA@corp.arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:04 PM, William Herrin wrote: > ... > Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set > up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address > registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted > split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to > operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous > about it. ... Bill - It?s not inconceivable, but does have to be harmonized so that there?s still a single coordinated registry system to keep the numbers unique. The present practice for new IP registries is documented in ICANN Internet Coordination Policy 2 (ICP-2), which provides for consideration of new Regional Internet Registries per specific criteria, but it does not seem to cover the specific case that you suggest. (A copy of ICANN ICP-2 may be found online here - ) There would need to discussion and consensus on a replacement coordination policy in order to cover non-geographic and/or geographic overlapping registries (and I can imagine that there are several other possible models worthy of consideration, such as central registry/registrar split models, etc.) You could contact the ASO AC if you have specific proposal to regarding ICP-2 replacement - also note that ICANN occasionally hosts discussions on RIR system evolution (as would be expected per RFC 7020), so that is another possible approach. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 22:25:40 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:25:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 26 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address registrations." Bill Herrin Out-of-the-box thinking for out-of- contract addresses:) Would that mean that ARIN would be able to request return of all resources previously allocated to "legacy registry " inhabitants? (silly question) I'd be interested to know how accurate is our general knowledge of legacy resources..I guess previous someones would have listed allocations but chairs and tables do get re-arranged over the years. RD On Jun 3, 2015 8:32 PM, wrote: > 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: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (Seth Johnson) > 2. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (William Herrin) > 3. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (William Herrin) > 4. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (William Herrin) > 5. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (Seth Johnson) > 6. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (John Curran) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:00:17 -0400 > From: Seth Johnson > To: William Herrin > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: > N9G10crjLOB3JQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson > wrote: > > I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to > > information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- > > and statutes giving property in information aren't really something > > that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were > > accorded to Congress to grant. > > (and I am not one to call these rights "property," specifically > because so much confusion has been wrought about information as a > result of the notion that statutory exclusive rights such as copyright > are "intellectual property." You only find the term "intellectual > property" advocated in France, before about 1980. They're exclusive > rights. There are a few of those things that have been accorded to > authors. :-) ) > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:38 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson > wrote: > >>> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as > >>> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. > >> > >> Hi Seth, > >> > >> IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or > >> trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of > >> *intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in > >> the U.S., from the Constitution itself. > >> > >> I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something > >> else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which > >> includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere > >> else in the ARIN region as well. > >> > >> Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common > >> Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't > >> begin to speculate how IP addresses fit. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bill Herrin > >> > >> > >> -- > >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:29:48 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: Seth Johnson > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: > mFQaCqg at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson > wrote: > > I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to > > information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- > > and statutes giving property in information aren't really something > > that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were > > accorded to Congress to grant. > > Hi Seth, > > Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday > activities, you probably don't even know its there. > > Take a bank check, for example. You hold a bank check written out to > you for $100. What do you own? Do you own a slip of paper? No, that's > silly. You own a promise of payment in the amount of $100, as > documented by the bank check. > > That promise is a form of property called "documentary intangible > property." You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's > because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute > that was ever written. > > Anyway, look it up. Common Law. Documentary Intangible Property. We > live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any > legislature and most of us don't even realize it. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:46:27 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: John Curran > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: > xcATEdXg2e_mbry_VXzNLkgAj-jUOcbUSaXBQS-yLQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:50 PM, John Curran wrote: > > If (in an alternate world) IP addresses were to be deemed to be freehold > > property rather > > than simply a specific set of rights, then it is quite likely that they > > would be USG property > > (dependent upon a rather interesting and convoluted set of agreements > that > > led to their > > development.) Some contractors may have a potential claim as well; good > luck > > with that. > > Hi John, > > I've considered that possibility over the past few years. I don't > think it holds water. > > Direct USG involvement in routing and addressing ended with the NSFnet > contract two decades ago when they walked away abandoning everything > to the various organizations which wished to keep the Internet > running. Despite fancy words from the NTIA, they have no statutory > authority to control Internet addressing nor any statutory authority > to assert ownership of IP addresses on behalf of the USG. And unlike > us mere mortals, the executive agencies' authority derives solely from > statute. > > My bet: if a judge finds IP addresses to be property, no part of the > USG will show up to even attempt to stake a claim. It'll be kid gloves > all around with statements expressing concern for the continued > orderly operation of the Internet. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:04:28 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: Matthew Kaufman > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' > Message-ID: > 4g at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: > > On 6/3/2015 1:14 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> > >> Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by > an > >> ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant > would > >> not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. > > > > As a holder of legacy address space, I really had no interest in having > ARIN > > take over the registry that held the records of those assignments, but as > > long as they were correct, I grudgingly accepted that outcome > > (interestingly, ARIN then managed to subsequently change the records for > one > > of the blocks even though such a change was never requested.. it actually > > made consolidating my holdings easier, but it shouldn't have happened). > > > Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set > up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address > registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted > split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to > operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous > about it. Should even be easier than a normal RIR since a legacy > registry would have no need for number allocations from IANA. And now > that IPv4 addresses have a significant monetary value, I'd like to > think we could find the funding to operate such a registry as well. > > That way we could get rid of the periodic legacy v. RSA battles that > infest our policy discussions. The legacy registrants would have > whatever policy they wanted to have at the legacy registrar and that > would be the end of it. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:05:55 -0400 > From: Seth Johnson > To: William Herrin > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: > ogXVxWQYGu+zGjBbPU5RdwB7g at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > That would be credit, negotiability, etc. Not a right in information. > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:29 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson > wrote: > >> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to > >> information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- > >> and statutes giving property in information aren't really something > >> that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were > >> accorded to Congress to grant. > > > > Hi Seth, > > > > Common Law Intangible Property is so firmly embedded in your everyday > > activities, you probably don't even know its there. > > > > Take a bank check, for example. You hold a bank check written out to > > you for $100. What do you own? Do you own a slip of paper? No, that's > > silly. You own a promise of payment in the amount of $100, as > > documented by the bank check. > > > > That promise is a form of property called "documentary intangible > > property." You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's > > because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute > > that was ever written. > > > > Anyway, look it up. Common Law. Documentary Intangible Property. We > > live our lives atop a huge base of law which never came from any > > legislature and most of us don't even realize it. > > > > Regards, > > Bill Herrin > > > > > > > > > > -- > > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 00:31:23 +0000 > From: John Curran > To: BIll Herrin > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' > Message-ID: <71862D01-B51E-49C6-8BFA-4ADBB139E5FA at corp.arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Jun 3, 2015, at 8:04 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > ... > > Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set > > up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address > > registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted > > split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to > > operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous > > about it. ... > > Bill - > > It?s not inconceivable, but does have to be harmonized so that there?s > still a > single coordinated registry system to keep the numbers unique. The > present > practice for new IP registries is documented in ICANN Internet > Coordination > Policy 2 (ICP-2), which provides for consideration of new Regional > Internet > Registries per specific criteria, but it does not seem to cover the > specific > case that you suggest. (A copy of ICANN ICP-2 may be found online here - > < > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/new-rirs-criteria > >) > > There would need to discussion and consensus on a replacement coordination > policy in order to cover non-geographic and/or geographic overlapping > registries > (and I can imagine that there are several other possible models worthy of > consideration, such as central registry/registrar split models, etc.) > > You could contact the ASO AC if you have specific proposal to regarding > ICP-2 > replacement - also note that ICANN occasionally hosts discussions on RIR > system evolution (as would be expected per RFC 7020), so that is another > possible approach. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > ARIN-PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 26 > ****************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From athompso at athompso.net Wed Jun 3 23:06:11 2015 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:06:11 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: <0F7BE842-C8E3-4667-B1A7-45C219E536B3@athompso.net> Also, the Canadian province of Quebec has civil law based on French civil law, not English like the rest of Canada. Considering that nearly half of all major Canadian corporations have their headquarters there... I don't have to draw that picture, I think. IIRC, there's no (e.g.) adverse possession concept, among other things. IANAL, can't explain all the differences. -Adam On June 3, 2015 5:38:08 PM CDT, William Herrin wrote: >On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson >wrote: >> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as >> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. > >Hi Seth, > >IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or >trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of >*intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in >the U.S., from the Constitution itself. > >I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something >else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which >includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere >else in the ARIN region as well. > >Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common >Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't >begin to speculate how IP addresses fit. > >Regards, >Bill Herrin > > >-- >William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us >Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >_______________________________________________ >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 from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 3 23:29:49 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:29:49 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> Message-ID: <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> John, >> If the community defines a policy that violates the trust the community has placed in ARIN, then I definitely am advocating that ARIN not follow that policy (community defined or not). For example, if the community defines a policy that requires ARIN to (say) "confiscate" IPv4 addresses from AfriNIC, then yes, I would advocate ARIN not follow the community-developed policy. Would you, as ARIN's CEO, say that policy must be followed? > > In our particular policy development process, there is a specific check where the Board > confirms that the policy advances ARIN's mission, does not create unreasonable fiduciary > or liability risk, is be consistent with ARIN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and all > applicable laws and regulations. Ironically, I had written a sentence that said "Please don't say 'our policy process wouldn't allow something like that' -- this is a hypothetical intended to be something easily identifiable as just wrong.", but deleted it as I felt it was obvious and didn't need to be said. > Ergo, I would hope that a policy that violates the ARIN?s mission (including the trust of the community) would not be ratified And my point has been that policies that damage the registration database are in violation of the mission of any of the Regional Internet Registries and should not be proposed, accepted, or ratified. >> However, as you may have noted, I strongly believe that _if those transfers still occur despite ARIN policy, the registry must still accurately reflect that transfer_. > > Okay, I think I see the area of disconnect, and it is with respect to the above point. > > Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address > holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the > transfer fee, etc?) > > Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively > ?possession? of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer, > that the registry has to eventually reflect reality? I'm not sure I see the the distinction you're making between the two. My opinion on whether ARIN should deny (presumably out of policy) transfers is not particularly relevant. Ignoring that, my answer to both would be 'yes'. Simply, I believe the registry needs to reflect reality as accurately as possible. As I've said before, the point of the registry is help ensure uniqueness and to facilitate the identification of contacts to support network operations, help track down sources of abuse, etc. Ignoring a request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of the registry. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From matthew at matthew.at Wed Jun 3 23:31:38 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:31:38 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning In-Reply-To: References: <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <556F7646.9010101@matthew.at> Message-ID: <556FC69A.6040703@matthew.at> On 6/3/2015 3:06 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 3, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: >> ... >> You could certainly argue (and I might) that the records of legacy >> assignments were in fact entrusted to ARIN to keep, and keep updated >> *whether or not the community drafted policy that said such updates >> were disallowed* > > Noting just one of the significant problems with that argument being > that at the time > of ARIN?s formation, the actual applicable registry policy was RFC > 2050 (having been > finished just a year earlier with folks like David Conrad and Jon > Postel as authors) - And strangely after many legacy addresses had already been allocated. > it states that those obtaining addresses via transfer must "meet the > same criteria as > if they were requesting an IP address directly from the Internet > Registry." Yes, the word "transfer" appears exactly once, and undefined, in RFC2050. The same RFC says that one of the three goals is to "document address space allocation and assignment" - as it says "this is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting at all levels". It is this latter goal that will no longer be met if organizations are forced to "transfer" without "transferring". > > I.E., If we were maintain the exact status quo that such parties had > prior to ARIN?s > formation, recognized ARIN is entrusted to maintain that, then folks > probably would > not like the result - today?s transfer policy is more lenient than the > transfer policy at > that point in time. > That's one possible conclusion. > (Thank an ARIN Advisory Council member when you next see them for all > of their > efforts getting useful transfer policy in the Number Resource Policy > Manual! :-) > We'll see. Matthew Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Wed Jun 3 23:37:07 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:07 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> <556F1B42.5020008@matthew.at> Message-ID: <556FC7E3.5050601@matthew.at> On 6/3/2015 9:19 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > There are two classes of address users on the Internet. > > 1. Those whose need for IP addresses does not grow > > 2. Those whose need for IP addresses continues to grow > > In the case of the first camp, there is no competitive disadvantage if > someone else buys all the > available IPv4 addresses. > > In the case of the second camp, if your organization can buy enough > IPv4 addresses to make it > through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, or at > least have a longer time > horizon of addresses than your competitors then there is no business > impact of running out > of IPv4. > > On the other hand if you don't have enough IPv4 addresses to make it > through until the > date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, and you run out before > your competitors > you risk losing growth going forward if there is IPv4-only content > that your transit customers > desire, or if there is an IPv4-only customer base your service want to > serve. > > > You don't need an unlimited supply, you only need either enough to get > you through transition > or more than your competitor (which ever is less). > > > I don't think it is safe to assume that all companies who need > addresses for growth have already > secured enough to get them through transition. (If that was the case > we wouldn't be having this > discussion.) > > Certainly some organizations have decided not to complete below board > transfers that they cannot > currently justify under ARIN policy. Certainly some have decided not > to secure a future in IPv4 > addresses because the risk is too high. Certainly some have limited > their activities because of > the level of risk, lack of transparency in pricing, uncertainty about > IPv6 adoption time lines, > uncertainty about the customer measurable impact of CGN, and a dozen > other things. > > > Nor do I think it is safe to assume that all the IPv4 addresses that > could be made available have > already been made available. > > > Given that it is likely that there are organization that have not > secured enough IPv4 addresses > to get them through wide spread IPv6 adoption. > > Given that it is likely that there are still more IPv4 addresses > available on the market for the > right price. > > Given that there is always the possibility that IPv4 addresses could > be returned and made > available through the current mechanisms. > > Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of > below board transfers > and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can > justify for the > next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior > where > organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential > access to IPv4 > addresses for potential future need over organizations that need > addresses now > (or in the next two year time horizon)? > > Do you believe that allowing the transfers proposed in 2015-2 would significantly do what you say is good for the community above? Matthew Kaufman From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 07:22:27 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:22:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <98F9BB62-ACA9-47A3-8EF8-0D83CD81A428@arin.net> On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:29 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> >> Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address >> holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the >> transfer fee, etc?) >> >> Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively >> ?possession? of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer, >> that the registry has to eventually reflect reality? > > I'm not sure I see the the distinction you're making between the two. My opinion on whether ARIN should deny (presumably out of policy) transfers is not particularly relevant. Ignoring that, my answer to both would be 'yes?. Understood. Given you have proposed that the registry ?accuracy? be measured via fidelity to operational control of an address block, and that furthermore ARIN has a responsibility to this definition of accuracy, I need to ask some further questions to better understand this measure and its implications to the registry - 1) Should we update the entry for those cases where there is a party with effective ?possession? (i.e. use) of an address block but the original address holder cannot be contacted or found? This is not uncommon for address blocks where the original address holder is long gone and there?s a party with operational control/use of the address block who is asserting to be the rightful address holder. 2) Similarly, should we update the entry when a party has been using an address block for some time, and is still actively using it, but there is a dispute about the meaning of paperwork between the party and present address holder in the registry? This also quite common, particularly with bill of sale documents that are ambiguous and being presented to the registry in documenting an asserted ?sale? of rights. 3) We presently have some practices regarding what documentation we require when a party asserts to now have the rights to IP address block via merger/acquisition You can see specifics here -> May we waive the documentation requirements if the party who asserts such can demonstrate that they have operational control of the IP address block? Once I have solid understanding of your accuracy model, it will be possible to understand what changes in mission/agreements/etc would be necessary if the community wished to move in that direction. It appears to represent a significant shift from tracking the legal rights to address blocks in the registry that we presently perform. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 07:43:20 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:43:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <98F9BB62-ACA9-47A3-8EF8-0D83CD81A428@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> <98F9BB62-ACA9-47A3-8EF8-0D83CD81A428@arin.net> Message-ID: <337D8C4F-F0A9-4AD6-8F8E-DB0C8E4C643D@arin.net> David - Apologies - it was pointed out to me that you might be speaking of how transfers should happen specifically for legacy IP address blocks (i.e. those held by parties due to their issuance prior to ARIN?s formation)? if that?s the case, please recast the questions as appropriate. Thanks! /John > On Jun 4, 2015, at 7:22 AM, John Curran wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:29 PM, David Conrad > wrote: >>> >>> Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address >>> holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the >>> transfer fee, etc?) >>> >>> Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively >>> ?possession? of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer, >>> that the registry has to eventually reflect reality? >> >> I'm not sure I see the the distinction you're making between the two. My opinion on whether ARIN should deny (presumably out of policy) transfers is not particularly relevant. Ignoring that, my answer to both would be 'yes?. > > > Understood. Given you have proposed that the registry ?accuracy? be measured via > fidelity to operational control of an address block, and that furthermore ARIN has a > responsibility to this definition of accuracy, I need to ask some further questions to > better understand this measure and its implications to the registry - > > 1) Should we update the entry for those cases where there is a party with effective > ?possession? (i.e. use) of an address block but the original address holder cannot > be contacted or found? This is not uncommon for address blocks where the > original address holder is long gone and there?s a party with operational control/use > of the address block who is asserting to be the rightful address holder. > > 2) Similarly, should we update the entry when a party has been using an address block > for some time, and is still actively using it, but there is a dispute about the meaning > of paperwork between the party and present address holder in the registry? This > also quite common, particularly with bill of sale documents that are ambiguous and > being presented to the registry in documenting an asserted ?sale? of rights. > > 3) We presently have some practices regarding what documentation we require when > a party asserts to now have the rights to IP address block via merger/acquisition > You can see specifics here -> > May we waive the documentation requirements if the party who asserts such can > demonstrate that they have operational control of the IP address block? > > Once I have solid understanding of your accuracy model, it will be possible to understand > what changes in mission/agreements/etc would be necessary if the community wished > to move in that direction. It appears to represent a significant shift from tracking the legal > rights to address blocks in the registry that we presently perform. > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Jun 4 08:09:03 2015 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 14:09:03 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <556F75B6.50 40907@matthew.at> Message-ID: <1BAA197D-FF82-426C-8459-17DB430C88E1@pch.net> This is something we've had a plan for for fifteen years, but were unable to get traction with the other four RIRs on. At the time, two other RIRs. :-) Yes, it's an excellent idea. Unfortunately, inter-RIR politics meant that we got ERX instead, which is a crap idea. -Bill > On Jun 4, 2015, at 02:05, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>> On 6/3/2015 1:14 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> >>> Finally: Legacy Registrations. Legacy registrations are not hampered by an >>> ARIN contract - they don't have one. This means a legacy registrant would >>> not have to overcome anything written in the RSA. >> >> As a holder of legacy address space, I really had no interest in having ARIN >> take over the registry that held the records of those assignments, but as >> long as they were correct, I grudgingly accepted that outcome >> (interestingly, ARIN then managed to subsequently change the records for one >> of the blocks even though such a change was never requested.. it actually >> made consolidating my holdings easier, but it shouldn't have happened). > > > Apropos nothing, I sometimes wonder if it would be worthwhile to set > up a "legacy registry" to maintain all the old out-of-contract address > registrations. ARIN was pretty helpful when LACNIC and AfriNIC wanted > split off. If it was the consensus of the legacy registrants to > operate their own registry, I'd hope ARIN would be reasonably generous > about it. Should even be easier than a normal RIR since a legacy > registry would have no need for number allocations from IANA. And now > that IPv4 addresses have a significant monetary value, I'd like to > think we could find the funding to operate such a registry as well. > > That way we could get rid of the periodic legacy v. RSA battles that > infest our policy discussions. The legacy registrants would have > whatever policy they wanted to have at the legacy registrar and that > would be the end of it. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > _______________________________________________ > 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 4 08:42:21 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:42:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: <1BAA197D-FF82-426C-8459-17DB430C88E1@pch.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <556F75B6.50 40907@matthew.at> <1BAA197D-FF82-426C-8459-17DB430C88E1@pch.net> Message-ID: <38E9DEB0-EDD7-4816-853F-9E0B072E3F65@corp.arin.net> On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > This is something we've had a plan for for fifteen years, but were unable to get traction with the other four RIRs on. At the time, two other RIRs. :-) > Yes, it's an excellent idea. Unfortunately, inter-RIR politics meant that we got ERX instead, which is a crap idea. Bill - With respect to ?ERX? only (I have no view on the other matter), I would note that some form of cross-registry support for Whois, reverse DNS, and other registry services would still have been necessary (whether called ?ERX" or something else.) This is particularly true now given inter-RIR transfers and will remain true in any environment other than one with a single shared services backend. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 4 09:30:30 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 14:30:30 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> Message-ID: <3D853737-D2D1-4BC0-A04F-3534003A4ACB@delong.com> > You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's > because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute > that was ever written. In fact, the combination of the National Banking Act and Federal Reserve Regulations do, in fact, comprise statutes defining a bank check. Owen From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Thu Jun 4 09:35:49 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:35:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On-docket proposals and exhaustion Message-ID: In a blog post on TeamArin.net on Monday, ARIN indicated that exhaustion was imminent: http://teamarin.net/2015/06/02/breaking-down-arins-remaining-ipv4-pool/ With the /11 leaving the pool, all that's left is: 1 /16 1 /20 3 /21s 4 /22s By the end of this week or so, all IPv4 will be exhausted at ARIN except for /23s and /24s. There are 4 proposals on-docket right now: - 8.2 Transfers: cleaning up language https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_4.html - IPv6 for end-users: opening up more eligibility criteria https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html - Modifying anti-flip language for inter-RIR transfers: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_2.html - Easing IPv4 end-user qualification criteria: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_3.html I know that PPML can be rough sometimes. We have a lot of strong personalities, passionate people, and disparate views. But exhaustion is here. After a long time of hearing about it, it's here, and it's real. Please review these proposals when you have some time, and chime in on PPML about your thoughts, opinions, improvements, suggestions, etc. There's room for your view here, and it's very much wanted. /david From aaronmg at cotc.net Thu Jun 4 10:22:27 2015 From: aaronmg at cotc.net (Aaron Gardner) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 09:22:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: <3D853737-D2D1-4BC0-A04F-3534003A4ACB@delong.com> References: <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <015201d09d4b$852aff40$8f80fdc0$@iptrading.com> <7B9ECC0D-F23E-4D3C-BF83-CBCD3492B39A@delong.com> <3D853737-D2D1-4BC0-A04F-3534003A4ACB@delong.com> Message-ID: <55705F23.40202@cotc.net> > In fact, the combination of the National Banking Act and Federal Reserve > Regulations do, in fact, comprise statutes defining a bank check. > As does the Uniform Commercial Code Article 3, which has been adopted in one form or another by nearly all U.S. jurisdictions. Thanks, Aaron From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 10:29:48 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:29:48 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 Message-ID: "Ignoring a request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of the registry." Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.)>>> Think you are correct....but, it is ever ignored? RD On Jun 3, 2015 11:37 PM, wrote: > 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: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (Adam Thompson) > 2. Re: Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (David Conrad) > 3. Re: Registry functioning (Matthew Kaufman) > 4. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (Matthew Kaufman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:06:11 -0500 > From: Adam Thompson > To: William Herrin ,Seth Johnson > > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: <0F7BE842-C8E3-4667-B1A7-45C219E536B3 at athompso.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Also, the Canadian province of Quebec has civil law based on French civil > law, not English like the rest of Canada. Considering that nearly half of > all major Canadian corporations have their headquarters there... I don't > have to draw that picture, I think. IIRC, there's no (e.g.) adverse > possession concept, among other things. IANAL, can't explain all the > differences. > -Adam > > On June 3, 2015 5:38:08 PM CDT, William Herrin wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson > >wrote: > >> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as > >> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. > > > >Hi Seth, > > > >IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or > >trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of > >*intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in > >the U.S., from the Constitution itself. > > > >I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something > >else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which > >includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere > >else in the ARIN region as well. > > > >Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common > >Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't > >begin to speculate how IP addresses fit. > > > >Regards, > >Bill Herrin > > > > > >-- > >William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > >Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > >_______________________________________________ > >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 from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/9a6751a5/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:29:49 -0700 > From: David Conrad > To: John Curran > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E at virtualized.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > John, > > >> If the community defines a policy that violates the trust the community > has placed in ARIN, then I definitely am advocating that ARIN not follow > that policy (community defined or not). For example, if the community > defines a policy that requires ARIN to (say) "confiscate" IPv4 addresses > from AfriNIC, then yes, I would advocate ARIN not follow the > community-developed policy. Would you, as ARIN's CEO, say that policy must > be followed? > > > > In our particular policy development process, there is a specific check > where the Board > > confirms that the policy advances ARIN's mission, does not create > unreasonable fiduciary > > or liability risk, is be consistent with ARIN's Articles of > Incorporation, Bylaws, and all > > applicable laws and regulations. > > Ironically, I had written a sentence that said "Please don't say 'our > policy process wouldn't allow something like that' -- this is a > hypothetical intended to be something easily identifiable as just wrong.", > but deleted it as I felt it was obvious and didn't need to be said. > > > Ergo, I would hope that a policy that violates the ARIN?s mission > (including the trust of the community) would not be ratified > > And my point has been that policies that damage the registration database > are in violation of the mission of any of the Regional Internet Registries > and should not be proposed, accepted, or ratified. > > >> However, as you may have noted, I strongly believe that _if those > transfers still occur despite ARIN policy, the registry must still > accurately reflect that transfer_. > > > > Okay, I think I see the area of disconnect, and it is with respect to > the above point. > > > > Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be > updated if address > > holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an > agreement pay the > > transfer fee, etc?) > > > > Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow > effectively > > ?possession? of the address block moves to another party despite lack of > transfer, > > that the registry has to eventually reflect reality? > > I'm not sure I see the the distinction you're making between the two. My > opinion on whether ARIN should deny (presumably out of policy) transfers is > not particularly relevant. Ignoring that, my answer to both would be 'yes'. > > Simply, I believe the registry needs to reflect reality as accurately as > possible. As I've said before, the point of the registry is help ensure > uniqueness and to facilitate the identification of contacts to support > network operations, help track down sources of abuse, etc. Ignoring a > request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to > that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby > defeating the point of the registry. > > Regards, > -drc > (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 496 bytes > Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/b07a9785/attachment-0001.bin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:31:38 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman > To: John Curran > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning > Message-ID: <556FC69A.6040703 at matthew.at> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > On 6/3/2015 3:06 PM, John Curran wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman > > wrote: > >> ... > >> You could certainly argue (and I might) that the records of legacy > >> assignments were in fact entrusted to ARIN to keep, and keep updated > >> *whether or not the community drafted policy that said such updates > >> were disallowed* > > > > Noting just one of the significant problems with that argument being > > that at the time > > of ARIN?s formation, the actual applicable registry policy was RFC > > 2050 (having been > > finished just a year earlier with folks like David Conrad and Jon > > Postel as authors) - > > And strangely after many legacy addresses had already been allocated. > > > it states that those obtaining addresses via transfer must "meet the > > same criteria as > > if they were requesting an IP address directly from the Internet > > Registry." > > Yes, the word "transfer" appears exactly once, and undefined, in RFC2050. > > The same RFC says that one of the three goals is to "document address > space allocation and assignment" - as it says "this is necessary to > ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble > shooting at all levels". It is this latter goal that will no longer be > met if organizations are forced to "transfer" without "transferring". > > > > > I.E., If we were maintain the exact status quo that such parties had > > prior to ARIN?s > > formation, recognized ARIN is entrusted to maintain that, then folks > > probably would > > not like the result - today?s transfer policy is more lenient than the > > transfer policy at > > that point in time. > > > > That's one possible conclusion. > > > (Thank an ARIN Advisory Council member when you next see them for all > > of their > > efforts getting useful transfer policy in the Number Resource Policy > > Manual! :-) > > > > We'll see. > > Matthew Kaufman > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/343a9845/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:07 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman > To: Jason Schiller > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > Message-ID: <556FC7E3.5050601 at matthew.at> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 6/3/2015 9:19 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > > There are two classes of address users on the Internet. > > > > 1. Those whose need for IP addresses does not grow > > > > 2. Those whose need for IP addresses continues to grow > > > > In the case of the first camp, there is no competitive disadvantage if > > someone else buys all the > > available IPv4 addresses. > > > > In the case of the second camp, if your organization can buy enough > > IPv4 addresses to make it > > through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, or at > > least have a longer time > > horizon of addresses than your competitors then there is no business > > impact of running out > > of IPv4. > > > > On the other hand if you don't have enough IPv4 addresses to make it > > through until the > > date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, and you run out before > > your competitors > > you risk losing growth going forward if there is IPv4-only content > > that your transit customers > > desire, or if there is an IPv4-only customer base your service want to > > serve. > > > > > > You don't need an unlimited supply, you only need either enough to get > > you through transition > > or more than your competitor (which ever is less). > > > > > > I don't think it is safe to assume that all companies who need > > addresses for growth have already > > secured enough to get them through transition. (If that was the case > > we wouldn't be having this > > discussion.) > > > > Certainly some organizations have decided not to complete below board > > transfers that they cannot > > currently justify under ARIN policy. Certainly some have decided not > > to secure a future in IPv4 > > addresses because the risk is too high. Certainly some have limited > > their activities because of > > the level of risk, lack of transparency in pricing, uncertainty about > > IPv6 adoption time lines, > > uncertainty about the customer measurable impact of CGN, and a dozen > > other things. > > > > > > Nor do I think it is safe to assume that all the IPv4 addresses that > > could be made available have > > already been made available. > > > > > > Given that it is likely that there are organization that have not > > secured enough IPv4 addresses > > to get them through wide spread IPv6 adoption. > > > > Given that it is likely that there are still more IPv4 addresses > > available on the market for the > > right price. > > > > Given that there is always the possibility that IPv4 addresses could > > be returned and made > > available through the current mechanisms. > > > > Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of > > below board transfers > > and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can > > justify for the > > next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior > > where > > organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential > > access to IPv4 > > addresses for potential future need over organizations that need > > addresses now > > (or in the next two year time horizon)? > > > > > > Do you believe that allowing the transfers proposed in 2015-2 would > significantly do what you say is good for the community above? > > Matthew Kaufman > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > ARIN-PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 28 > ****************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Thu Jun 4 10:37:29 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 14:37:29 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes RD. I can think of two interesting (and very different) scenarios where this plays out every day: 1) Companies either abandon transfer requests with ARIN, or they don't even submit them. ARIN staff have done good work addressing the former, in hopes it will remedy the latter. But there are thousands of block registrations in ARIN Whois which are not accurate, and which have been reported to ARIN as transferred, but remain in the wrong name. ARIN transfer policy was too strict, and ARIN procedures too bureaucratic, and thus legitimate transfers of blocks were ignored. 2) Many companies (including big internet names you use every day) have already bought IPv4 addresses (or ?the first right of refusal? and other types of contracts) for the future needs beyond 2 years. Big companies have locked up their /8s. ARIN won?t process those transfers. The IP address registrations remain in legacy holders? names, even though the legacy holders have sold them off. From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 7:30 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 "Ignoring a request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of the registry." Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.)>>> Think you are correct....but, it is ever ignored? RD On Jun 3, 2015 11:37 PM, wrote: 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: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) ? ? ? (Adam Thompson) ? ?2. Re: Registry functioning (was: Re:? ARIN-PPML 2015-2) ? ? ? (David Conrad) ? ?3. Re: Registry functioning (Matthew Kaufman) ? ?4. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (Matthew Kaufman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:06:11 -0500 From: Adam Thompson To: William Herrin ,Seth Johnson ? ? ? ? Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML ? ? ? ? 2015-2) Message-ID: <0F7BE842-C8E3-4667-B1A7-45C219E536B3 at athompso.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Also, the Canadian province of Quebec has civil law based on French civil law, not English like the rest of Canada.? Considering that nearly half of all major Canadian corporations have their headquarters there... I don't have to draw that picture, I think.? IIRC, there's no (e.g.) adverse possession concept, among other things.? IANAL, can't explain all the differences. -Adam On June 3, 2015 5:38:08 PM CDT, William Herrin wrote: >On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson >wrote: >> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that.? There's no such thing as >> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. > >Hi Seth, > >IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or >trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of >*intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in >the U.S., from the Constitution itself. > >I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something >else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which >includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere >else in the ARIN region as well. > >Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common >Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't >begin to speculate how IP addresses fit. > >Regards, >Bill Herrin > > >-- >William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us >Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: >_______________________________________________ >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 from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:29:49 -0700 From: David Conrad To: John Curran Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re:? ARIN-PPML ? ? ? ? 2015-2) Message-ID: <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E at virtualized.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" John, >> If the community defines a policy that violates the trust the community has placed in ARIN, then I definitely am advocating that ARIN not follow that policy (community defined or not). For example, if the community defines a policy that requires ARIN to (say) "confiscate" IPv4 addresses from AfriNIC, then yes, I would advocate ARIN not follow the community-developed policy. Would you, as ARIN's CEO, say that policy must be followed? > > In our particular policy development process, there is a specific check where the Board > confirms that the policy advances ARIN's mission, does not create unreasonable fiduciary > or liability risk, is be consistent with ARIN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and all > applicable laws and regulations. Ironically, I had written a sentence that said "Please don't say 'our policy process wouldn't allow something like that' -- this is a hypothetical intended to be something easily identifiable as just wrong.", but deleted it as I felt it was obvious and didn't need to be said. > Ergo, I would hope that a policy that violates the ARIN?s mission (including the trust of the community) would not be ratified And my point has been that policies that damage the registration database are in violation of the mission of any of the Regional Internet Registries and should not be proposed, accepted, or ratified. >> However, as you may have noted, I strongly believe that _if those transfers still occur despite ARIN policy, the registry must still accurately reflect that transfer_. > > Okay, I think I see the area of disconnect, and it is with respect to the above point. > > Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address > holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the > transfer fee, etc?) > > Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively > ?possession? of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer, > that the registry has to eventually reflect reality? I'm not sure I see the the distinction you're making between the two. My opinion on whether ARIN should deny (presumably out of policy) transfers is not particularly relevant. Ignoring that, my answer to both would be 'yes'. Simply, I believe the registry needs to reflect reality as accurately as possible. As I've said before, the point of the registry is help ensure uniqueness and to facilitate the identification of contacts to support network operations, help track down sources of abuse, etc. Ignoring a request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of the registry. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:31:38 -0700 From: Matthew Kaufman To: John Curran Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning Message-ID: <556FC69A.6040703 at matthew.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" On 6/3/2015 3:06 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 3, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: >> ... >> You could certainly argue (and I might) that the records of legacy >> assignments were in fact entrusted to ARIN to keep, and keep updated >> *whether or not the community drafted policy that said such updates >> were disallowed* > > Noting just one of the significant problems with that argument being > that at the time > of ARIN?s formation, the actual applicable registry policy was RFC > 2050 (having been > finished just a year earlier with folks like David Conrad and Jon > Postel as authors) - And strangely after many legacy addresses had already been allocated. > it states that those obtaining addresses via transfer must "meet the > same criteria as > if they were requesting an IP address directly from the Internet > Registry." Yes, the word "transfer" appears exactly once, and undefined, in RFC2050. The same RFC says that one of the three goals is to "document address space allocation and assignment" - as it says "this is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting at all levels". It is this latter goal that will no longer be met if organizations are forced to "transfer" without "transferring". > > I.E., If we were maintain the exact status quo that such parties had > prior to ARIN?s > formation,? recognized ARIN is entrusted to maintain that, then folks > probably would > not like the result - today?s transfer policy is more lenient than the > transfer policy at > that point in time. > That's one possible conclusion. > (Thank an ARIN Advisory Council member when you next see them for all > of their > efforts getting useful transfer policy in the Number Resource Policy > Manual! :-) > We'll see. Matthew Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:07 -0700 From: Matthew Kaufman To: Jason Schiller Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Message-ID: <556FC7E3.5050601 at matthew.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 6/3/2015 9:19 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > There are two classes of address users on the Internet. > > 1. Those whose need for IP addresses does not grow > > 2. Those whose need for IP addresses continues to grow > > In the case of the first camp, there is no competitive disadvantage if > someone else buys all the > available IPv4 addresses. > > In the case of the second camp, if your organization can buy enough > IPv4 addresses to make it > through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, or at > least have a longer time > horizon of addresses than your competitors then there is no business > impact of running out > of IPv4. > > On the other hand if you don't have enough IPv4 addresses to make it > through until the > date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, and you run out before > your competitors > you risk losing growth going forward if there is IPv4-only content > that your transit customers > desire, or if there is an IPv4-only customer base your service want to > serve. > > > You don't need an unlimited supply, you only need either enough to get > you through transition > or more than your competitor (which ever is less). > > > I don't think it is safe to assume that all companies who need > addresses for growth have already > secured enough to get them through transition.? (If that was the case > we wouldn't be having this > discussion.) > > Certainly some organizations have decided not to complete below board > transfers that they cannot > currently justify under ARIN policy.? Certainly some have decided not > to secure a future in IPv4 > addresses because the risk is too high.? Certainly some have limited > their activities because of > the level of risk, lack of transparency in pricing, uncertainty about > IPv6 adoption time lines, > uncertainty about the customer measurable impact of CGN, and a dozen > other things. > > > Nor do I think it is safe to assume that all the IPv4 addresses that > could be made available have > already been made available. > > > Given that it is likely that there are organization that have not > secured enough IPv4 addresses > to get them through wide spread IPv6 adoption. > > Given that it is likely that there are still more IPv4 addresses > available on the market for the > right price. > > Given that there is always the possibility that IPv4 addresses could > be returned and made > available through the current mechanisms. > > Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of > below board transfers > and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can > justify for the > next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior > where > organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential > access to IPv4 > addresses for potential future need over organizations that need > addresses now > (or in the next two year time horizon)? > > Do you believe that allowing the transfers proposed in 2015-2 would significantly do what you say is good for the community above? Matthew Kaufman ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 28 ****************************************** From woody at pch.net Thu Jun 4 10:45:16 2015 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:45:16 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <1804711E-8077-4240-8EA5-AD87643B1B3E@pch.net> > On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:29 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > Failing to update the contact information of a buyer of heroin means that law enforcement will no longer have records that reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of law enforcement. Or something to that effect. But the point of law enforcement is to enforce laws, not to stand by passively and record infractions. Just as the point of a regulatory agency is to act in the public good, not just stand by and document infractions. And the point of the RIRs is to maintain a balance between aggregation and availability while maintaining uniqueness, not to just document violations. That?s like the ISO 9000 alternative to governance. Screw up as much as you like, but document in triplicate. Not actually useful. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mike at iptrading.com Thu Jun 4 10:43:52 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:43:52 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> "Ignoring a request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of the registry." Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.)>>> Think you are correct....but, it is ever ignored? RD Hi Rudy, While the MS/Nortel auction was underway, I purchased a legacy /24 from a seller and asked ARIN to update Whois as a test. I refused to cooperate with any needs test but told them I would send them a copy of the contract and they could also communicate with the seller. They refused. Hope this helps. Regards, Mike Burns -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From MLindsey at avenue4llc.com Thu Jun 4 11:12:02 2015 From: MLindsey at avenue4llc.com (Marc Lindsey) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:12:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' Message-ID: The question of whether IPv4 numbers qualify as property has been the subject of a lot of discussion on the PPML (recently and over the years). As lawyers working within this domain, my partner (Janine Goodman) and I have researched the subject extensively. Although the answer is not as crisp as many would like, after balancing the conflicting considerations, the common law leads to finding property rights in IPv4 numbers. A resource's position on the spectrum between the commons and private property can change over time. When a resource is considered part of the commons, allocation and access are governed by the community. When a resource is considered "private property," the law vests the owners with rights of control and access. To be considered private property, a resource must be separately identifiable and have a degree of persistence. Under current common law in the U.S., the courts have found that a resource rises to the level of "private property" where the holder of that resource has the right to possess, the right to use, and the right to dispose of the resource, and the right to exclude others from enjoying these other rights. Scarcity of the resource and its commercial value are key catalysts to moving a resource along the spectrum from commons to private property. When a resource is scarce and its value increases, the common law tends to recognize that the holder of that resource has greater rights to control access to the resource (thereby excluding others from use) and to transfer the resource (thereby giving the holder the ability to extract value). When a holder of a resource has the rights to possess, use, dispose of and exclude from others the use of a resource, all of the property ingredients are present. So where do IPv4 number resources fall on the spectrum? The best example of a category of property newly recognized in the modern era is domain names. In 2003, domain names attained the legal status of property in the Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. Cohen, a decision that has been followed by numerous courts. In concluding that domain names were intangible property, the Ninth Circuit found that a property interest must satisfy three conditions: (1) it must be "an interest capable of precise definition", (2) the interest must be "capable of exclusive possession or control," and (3) "the putative owner must have established a legitimate claim to exclusivity." A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and updating its registry records. I'm sharing the above with the PPML to, hopefully, contribute to the conversation generally on policies that (directly or indirectly) implicate the "property" status of IPv4 numbers. I am not, however, offering legal advice by way of this posting. Marc Lindsey Avenue4 LLC 2001 L Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 www.Avenue4LLC.com From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 11:36:30 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:36:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mike Burns > wrote: I refused to cooperate with any needs test but told them I would send them a copy of the contract and they could also communicate with the seller. PPML Folks - I believe we are expected to follow the community-developed policy and that means that parties which don?t provide the documentation necessary to allow needs-assessment cannot receive number resource via transfer. Please advise if this should be handled differently, and propose appropriate updates to the policy accordingly. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Jun 4 11:47:21 2015 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:47:21 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> So assuming this was a legacy resource transfer, that means ARIN is purposely stopping the database from being updated even when informed about a contractual transfer and provided with the transfer documents for verification. I would point out that ARIN is doing the opposite of fulfilling one of the main reasons ARIN was formed - and that is to keep the database accurate. Shouldn?t all Polices that are opposed to ARIN?s Mission be changed to be in line with ARIN?s Mission including this? I would think the CEO & Board of Directors have a fiduciary duty to quickly fix areas where policies are not in alignment with the ARIN Mission. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office [Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:37 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mike Burns > wrote: I refused to cooperate with any needs test but told them I would send them a copy of the contract and they could also communicate with the seller. PPML Folks - I believe we are expected to follow the community-developed policy and that means that parties which don?t provide the documentation necessary to allow needs-assessment cannot receive number resource via transfer. Please advise if this should be handled differently, and propose appropriate updates to the policy accordingly. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 11:48:16 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:48:16 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey > wrote: A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any party which feels their alleged ?property rights? have been abridged to seek legal relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry contrary to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of results which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community policy. The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and updating its registry records. Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of transfers, and this would be become difficult under a ?IP property address? regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to recognize the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been issued. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Thu Jun 4 11:58:13 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:58:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <55707595.5010700@matthew.at> On 6/4/2015 8:36 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mike Burns > wrote: >> I refused to cooperate with any needs test but told them I would send >> them a copy of the contract and they could also communicate with the >> seller. > > PPML Folks - > > I believe we are expected to follow the community-developed policy > and > that means that parties which don?t provide the documentation > necessary > to allow needs-assessment cannot receive number resource via transfer. > We need better language for this. Mike "received number resource via transfer". What he didn't receive was "a transfer of a record in the ARIN registry", because he didn't provide the documentation necessary for the community-developed policy for recording a transfer in that registry. But he's got a contract which - though I have not seen it myself - I would not at all be surprised does in fact transfer the right to use those integers as addresses on the global Internet from someone else to Mike. Matthew Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 12:03:56 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:03:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3986CC0A-3F4B-4A6D-99AD-C716AB2CF974@corp.arin.net> On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:37 AM, David Huberman wrote: > > Yes RD. I can think of two interesting (and very different) scenarios where this plays out every day: > > 1) Companies either abandon transfer requests with ARIN, or they don't even submit them. ARIN staff have done good work addressing the former, in hopes it will remedy the latter. But there are thousands of block registrations in ARIN Whois which are not accurate, and which have been reported to ARIN as transferred, but remain in the wrong name. David - A quick survey of abandoned request count would lead me to believe there are indeed hundreds, but not thousands. It?s also worth noting that some of these requests were from parties that were not actually be the address holder, as we?ve had both cases of intentional misappropriation as well as incidental misappropriation attempted (e.g. a sys/network admin attempts to assert their claim over address block of an a defunct company, only to find out that there is a legal successor firm who is the rightful holder) As Bill Woodcock noted, we?re not here to just document infrafractions - we serve as the registry of record to protect the rights of those who are the actual address holder, and have had cases where our denial of improperly documented transfers has allowed the correct party to later update and have continued use of the number resources. > 2) Many companies (including big internet names you use every day) have already bought IPv4 addresses (or ?the first right of refusal? and other types of contracts) for the future needs beyond 2 years. Are you proposing that ARIN register such contracts? These do not seem to be within the scope of our mission, and these sorts of contracts would realistically exist in any case for some business situations. If you want to see less of them, them let?s change policy. If you are proposing that ARIN somehow get involved in registering such contracts, I personally believe it to lie beyond the scope of the organization (although I have not spoken with the Board on that particular matter) > Big companies have locked up their /8s. ARIN won?t process those transfers. The IP address registrations remain in legacy holders? names, even though the legacy holders have sold them off. That certainly has occurred for some, and yet others have processed their transfers in accordance with registry policy and the new address holder is properly listed in Whois as expected (just look at the subdivided blocks in the transfer statistic log for evidence of same.) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 12:07:19 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:07:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <473FDE30-7CF4-4C28-894C-02071E4CFF5D@arin.net> On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: So assuming this was a legacy resource transfer, that means ARIN is purposely stopping the database from being updated even when informed about a contractual transfer and provided with the transfer documents for verification. I would point out that ARIN is doing the opposite of fulfilling one of the main reasons ARIN was formed - and that is to keep the database accurate. Steve - Again, we?re keeping the database accurate - it reflects the party that has the right to transfer the resources in accordance with registry policy. Since the transfer failed, that party can always come back and transfer his address block to another party (this one would presumably be in accordance with policy.) If you want a database of who is routing the address block, that?s a different matter - go look at the routing tables at various points in the Internet. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 12:31:04 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:31:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <55707595.5010700@matthew.at> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <55707595.5010700@matthew.at> Message-ID: <5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net> On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: On 6/4/2015 8:36 AM, John Curran wrote: On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mike Burns > wrote: I refused to cooperate with any needs test but told them I would send them a copy of the contract and they could also communicate with the seller. PPML Folks - I believe we are expected to follow the community-developed policy and that means that parties which don?t provide the documentation necessary to allow needs-assessment cannot receive number resource via transfer. We need better language for this. Mike "received number resource via transfer". What he didn't receive was "a transfer of a record in the ARIN registry", because he didn't provide the documentation necessary for the community-developed policy for recording a transfer in that registry. But he's got a contract which - though I have not seen it myself - I would not at all be surprised does in fact transfer the right to use those integers as addresses on the global Internet from someone else to Mike. Matthew - Bingo! What exactly was transferred by that contract, and how did the original party have the ?rights? that they claimed to sell to Mike? If it?s rights in the registry, we know those only transfer per the policies of the community. If it?s something else, where do those rights originate and what exactly are the rights being sold? We?ve got many transfers of address blocks being done where the contract says ?transfer of the rights to use and be associated with the IP address entry in the Internet number registry? For such transfers, the original party can show the RSA or LRSA as proof that they have the rights to which they speak, or can point to the Whois and ask ARIN (as the registry admin) to confirm such if they do not happen to have an L/RSA. In such cases, the recipient receives the same rights. All of this is fairly clear, and makes a lot of sense to judges (at least from my decade or so dealing with it.) In the alternative formulation, someone sold Mike (as you put it) the "the right to use those integers as addresses on the global Internet?? It is not at all clear how someone ever obtained that right so that it could be sold, or even how that right is enforceable since ?the global Internet? would imply the entities that operate the global routing table. Do you believe that ARIN issues " "the right to use those integers as addresses on the global Internet? with our IPv4 and IPv6 blocks that we assign out today? I know that legally we have no way of stating we are giving someone ?the right to use those integers as addresses on the global Internet? - at best, we can say that we provide them exclusive association and use in the Internet numbers registry system, including the right to transfer in accordance with policy. (Mind you, we could actually say ?the exclusive right to use in the global Internet routing table as maintained by ARIN?s registry users? but doing that would require that ARIN?s registry users be obligated to only route blocks on behalf of the parties listed in the registry? does anyone really want this obligation with the Internet numbers registry system? As someone whose run several Internet service providers, I personally wouldn?t wish that if I were still doing so, but ?rights? have to come from somewhere and if they are anything more that rights to entries in the registry, we need to figure out fairly quickly what they are, and how they are made real.) As I said earlier, all of this becomes quite important if parties are to have legal rights that they can rely upon and enforce in court. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Jun 4 14:58:31 2015 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:58:31 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> > On Jun 4, 2015, at 17:47, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > I would point out that ARIN is doing the opposite of fulfilling one of the main reasons ARIN was formed - and that is to keep the database accurate. Funny, I was there, and I don't remember that being on the agenda. What I remember is balancing the need for aggregatability with the availability of independent blocks, and conservation of a scarce resource. The notion that people who couldn't abide with the public interest should be catered to at everyone else's expense was not, to the best of my recollection "one of the main reasons ARIN was formed." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: not available URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Jun 4 15:04:27 2015 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 19:04:27 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> So are you saying (since you were there) that one of the key reasons ARIN was formed was NOT to keep the Registry Database accurate? Steven L Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392-0076 - Fax [Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody at pch.net] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:59 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 On Jun 4, 2015, at 17:47, Steven Ryerse > wrote: I would point out that ARIN is doing the opposite of fulfilling one of the main reasons ARIN was formed - and that is to keep the database accurate. Funny, I was there, and I don't remember that being on the agenda. What I remember is balancing the need for aggregatability with the availability of independent blocks, and conservation of a scarce resourc e. The notion that people who couldn't abide with the public interest should be catered to at everyone else's expense was not, to the best of my recollection "one of the main reasons ARIN was formed." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1473 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Jun 4 15:08:49 2015 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 21:08:49 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: Are you saying that your primary school education failed to cover rhetorical and logical fallacies? If you want to have a conversation, you're welcome to, but you need to make sense. -Bill > On Jun 4, 2015, at 21:04, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > So are you saying (since you were there) that one of the key reasons ARIN was formed was NOT to keep the Registry Database accurate? > > 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? > > From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody at pch.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:59 PM > To: Steven Ryerse > Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net List > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 > > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 17:47, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > I would point out that ARIN is doing the opposite of fulfilling one of the main reasons ARIN was formed - and that is to keep the database accurate. > > Funny, I was there, and I don't remember that being on the agenda. What I remember is balancing the need for aggregatability with the availability of independent blocks, and conservation of a scarce resourc e. The notion that people who couldn't abide with the public interest should be catered to at everyone else's expense was not, to the best of my recollection "one of the main reasons ARIN was formed." -------------- 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: not available URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Jun 4 16:00:06 2015 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:00:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I take it from your tone that you don?t think that keeping the ARIN Registry Database is as important than Needs Testing. If that is the case then why keep up the charade that the Registry is important at all? Just change ARINs Mission to say that needs testing is more important than keeping the Registry accurate. This is what the current policies actually do in real life practice today anyway, as every single Legacy block that sells outside of ARIN that ARIN refuses to register makes the Registry more and more inaccurate. I?ve seen quite a lot of folks in this community state in this forum that keeping the Registry Database current is important to them and I share that position. Refusing to allow folks like Mike Burns to update the Registry info on the sale of a legacy block, when he will provide reasonable Contractual evidence to ARIN and the seller who is listed in the Registry will vouch that the sales has occurred, hurts everyone who needs the Registry to be accurate. I know some folks in this community don?t like Legacy blocks being sold outside of ARIN but since it happens anyway, at least the Registry could be more accurate when it does ? but then there I go again trying to apply some common sense. 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: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody at pch.net] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:09 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 Are you saying that your primary school education failed to cover rhetorical and logical fallacies? If you want to have a conversation, you're welcome to, but you need to make sense. -Bill On Jun 4, 2015, at 21:04, Steven Ryerse > wrote: So are you saying (since you were there) that one of the key reasons ARIN was formed was NOT to keep the Registry Database accurate? 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: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody at pch.net] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:59 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 On Jun 4, 2015, at 17:47, Steven Ryerse > wrote: I would point out that ARIN is doing the opposite of fulfilling one of the main reasons ARIN was formed - and that is to keep the database accurate. Funny, I was there, and I don't remember that being on the agenda. What I remember is balancing the need for aggregatability with the availability of independent blocks, and conservation of a scarce resourc e. The notion that people who couldn't abide with the public interest should be catered to at everyone else's expense was not, to the best of my recollection "one of the main reasons ARIN was formed." -------------- 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: From woody at pch.net Thu Jun 4 16:10:49 2015 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 22:10:49 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: > On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > I take it from your tone that you don?t think that keeping the ARIN Registry Database is as important than Needs Testing. Then perhaps you should read the words, rather than imputing a ?tone.? You?ve managed, at the very least, to wrap a false dichotomy, a straw man, and a begging-of-the-question into a single sentence. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 16:12:41 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:12:41 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: ... I?ve seen quite a lot of folks in this community state in this forum that keeping the Registry Database current is important to them and I share that position. Steve - If that?s the case, then please engage with the portion of the community that seeks need-testing for transfers, work to understand their concerns, and come up with a policy proposal that addresses them. That is likely to be far more effectively that asserting a registry accuracy concern, since attempted transfers that don?t meet policy can?t be put in the registry without making the registry an inaccurate record of the party with rights to the address block entry. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Thu Jun 4 16:50:15 2015 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:50:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E40F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> I do understand their concerns and obviously I disagree with needs testing. What is really needed is size testing to match the size of the block allocations to the size of the organization, as I?ve mentioned many times before. Needs testing, with IPv4 run out pretty much here, is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. With IPv4 run out the pace of blocks being sold outside of ARIN is likely to increase and with current policy the Registry database keeps becoming more and more inaccurate. It is a fact that Legacy blocks are being sold outside ARIN. Assuming I agreed that needs testing is important that just leaves this community two options: The Bad option is: When a Legacy block sells Outside ARIN without needs testing but with reasonable documentation and verification provided to ARIN (which could be defined in an ARIN policy) the Registry info could be updated. The Worse option is: When a Legacy block sells Outside ARIN without needs testing but with reasonable documentation and verification the Registry info won?t be updated. So the real life choice (short of a law being passed or a Judge making a decision) for folks that want Needs testing, is to take the Bad option or take the Worse option. If the Registry does matter to this community then the Bad option is slightly better than the Worse option. If Registry accuracy doesn?t matter then we should just change ARIN?s mission to not care about keeping the Registry accurate and all live with that, as Legacy blocks will keep getting sold outside of ARIN. So John, is keeping the Registry as accurate as it can be important or not? 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: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 4:13 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: ... I?ve seen quite a lot of folks in this community state in this forum that keeping the Registry Database current is important to them and I share that position. Steve - If that?s the case, then please engage with the portion of the community that seeks need-testing for transfers, work to understand their concerns, and come up with a policy proposal that addresses them. That is likely to be far more effectively that asserting a registry accuracy concern, since attempted transfers that don?t meet policy can?t be put in the registry without making the registry an inaccurate record of the party with rights to the address block entry. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- 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: From jschiller at google.com Thu Jun 4 16:52:51 2015 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:52:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <556FC7E3.5050601@matthew.at> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <556E0D41.6010200@matthew.at> <3A388F5B-6CBB-4D79-BBDF-9791AD86BB90@delong.com> <556F1B42.5020008@matthew.at> <556FC7E3.5050601@matthew.at> Message-ID: | Do you believe that allowing the transfers proposed in 2015-2 would significantly do | what you say is good for the community above? I posed a question... Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of below board transfers and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can justify for the next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior where organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential access to IPv4 addresses for potential future need over organizations that need addresses now (or in the next two year time horizon)? Do I think 2015-2 would legitimize what is currently an out of policy transfer, and thus reduce the risk and increase the likelihood of this behavior? Yes, for mutli-national organizations. This would make it legitimate for any organization that has a legal presence and does business in the ARIN service region, the APNIC region and the RIPE region to buy more than a two year supply of IP addresses from an organization in the ARIN service region. Such an organization could buy a two year supply that is justified by need in the ARIN region, transfer them (in smaller parts) to an APNIC org that can justify them, and transfer them to an RIPE org. And repeat until there was a 4 year, 6 year, 8 year supply. This would be legitimate, and certainly would be less risk than buying a future of 8 years worth of IPv4 addressing, as such I would expect 2015-2 to significantly increase this behavior. ___Jason On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/3/2015 9:19 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > >> There are two classes of address users on the Internet. >> >> 1. Those whose need for IP addresses does not grow >> >> 2. Those whose need for IP addresses continues to grow >> >> In the case of the first camp, there is no competitive disadvantage if >> someone else buys all the >> available IPv4 addresses. >> >> In the case of the second camp, if your organization can buy enough IPv4 >> addresses to make it >> through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, or at least >> have a longer time >> horizon of addresses than your competitors then there is no business >> impact of running out >> of IPv4. >> >> On the other hand if you don't have enough IPv4 addresses to make it >> through until the >> date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, and you run out before your >> competitors >> you risk losing growth going forward if there is IPv4-only content that >> your transit customers >> desire, or if there is an IPv4-only customer base your service want to >> serve. >> >> >> You don't need an unlimited supply, you only need either enough to get >> you through transition >> or more than your competitor (which ever is less). >> >> >> I don't think it is safe to assume that all companies who need addresses >> for growth have already >> secured enough to get them through transition. (If that was the case we >> wouldn't be having this >> discussion.) >> >> Certainly some organizations have decided not to complete below board >> transfers that they cannot >> currently justify under ARIN policy. Certainly some have decided not to >> secure a future in IPv4 >> addresses because the risk is too high. Certainly some have limited >> their activities because of >> the level of risk, lack of transparency in pricing, uncertainty about >> IPv6 adoption time lines, >> uncertainty about the customer measurable impact of CGN, and a dozen >> other things. >> >> >> Nor do I think it is safe to assume that all the IPv4 addresses that >> could be made available have >> already been made available. >> >> >> Given that it is likely that there are organization that have not secured >> enough IPv4 addresses >> to get them through wide spread IPv6 adoption. >> >> Given that it is likely that there are still more IPv4 addresses >> available on the market for the >> right price. >> >> Given that there is always the possibility that IPv4 addresses could be >> returned and made >> available through the current mechanisms. >> >> Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of below >> board transfers >> and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can >> justify for the >> next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior >> where >> organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential >> access to IPv4 >> addresses for potential future need over organizations that need >> addresses now >> (or in the next two year time horizon)? >> >> >> > Do you believe that allowing the transfers proposed in 2015-2 would > significantly do what you say is good for the community above? > > Matthew Kaufman > > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rjletts at uw.edu Thu Jun 4 16:54:36 2015 From: rjletts at uw.edu (Richard J. Letts) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 20:54:36 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: I am against 2015-2; either I?m not understanding why waiting to do this is a problem or it?s shuffling deckchairs for a minority of companies. Richard Letts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 17:00:02 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 21:00:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E40F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> , <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E40F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <7EEEB2A6-5870-44ED-8BC4-D92448167DC4@arin.net> On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Steven Ryerse > wrote: So John, is keeping the Registry as accurate as it can be important or not? Steven - Keeping the registry accurate is a high priority - however, there is apparently dispute over what exactly an "accurate registry" means... /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- 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: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 17:33:30 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 17:33:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, there's been no lack of "theory" since the 80's trying to concoct this bizarre notion of owning pure abstraction. The courts have long engaged specifically on the question of how to distinguish the non-ownability of information from the subject matter of information-related areas in which rights are accorded and recognized. It's just basic post-Enlightenment thought and law. Some are "propertarian" and try hard to make the law work that way. But you can't eliminate the most basic foundations of our civil order (often manifest in common law reasoning) just by wishing them away -- thankfully. The legacy of law doesn't disappear, even after 30-odd years of broad-reaching efforts throughout our institutions to subvert it. Especially in common law. Judges there have to try to deal in reality. If they try to act like you can own pure information, they rapidly run aground. So, it just doesn't happen. Perhaps the biggest institutional register of this more recent trend to attempt to apply radical privatization even to pure information has been the DC Circuit. But it's running aground, too, at long last. But it's been everywhere, and for quite some time. I believe we're finally starting to see the plain light of reason return though. Seth On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey wrote: > > > A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by > operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is > readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying > this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did > with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority > to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) > registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for > routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are > reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the > [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like > domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, > they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. > > > If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any > party > which feels their alleged ?property rights? have been abridged to seek legal > relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry > contrary > to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of > results > which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community > policy. > > The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and > rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The > Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network > Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property > where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and > updating its registry records. > > > Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an > expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of > transfers, and this would be become difficult under a ?IP property address? > regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to > recognize > the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are > supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been > issued. > > 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 17:42:45 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 17:42:45 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' Message-ID: Even today, you don't find the term "intellectual property" in our copyright statutes. It's in a few footnotes to things that are named that way. But the law is just what it is: statutory exclusive rights. In a tricky area, to be sure: how do we have exclusive rights in original expression, but not facts and ideas? But it always returns, because the truth of it is ineffable. The same applies in other areas of the law as well. This is Enlightenment thought: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html Declaring that all policy is best "privatized and deregulated" doesn't make it so. Maybe in many or perhaps even most areas, but have a clue about where it's nonsense. :-) Seth On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > Yeah, there's been no lack of "theory" since the 80's trying to > concoct this bizarre notion of owning pure abstraction. > > The courts have long engaged specifically on the question of how to > distinguish the non-ownability of information from the subject matter > of information-related areas in which rights are accorded and > recognized. It's just basic post-Enlightenment thought and law. Some > are "propertarian" and try hard to make the law work that way. But > you can't eliminate the most basic foundations of our civil order > (often manifest in common law reasoning) just by wishing them away -- > thankfully. The legacy of law doesn't disappear, even after 30-odd > years of broad-reaching efforts throughout our institutions to subvert > it. Especially in common law. Judges there have to try to deal in > reality. If they try to act like you can own pure information, they > rapidly run aground. So, it just doesn't happen. Perhaps the biggest > institutional register of this more recent trend to attempt to apply > radical privatization even to pure information has been the DC > Circuit. But it's running aground, too, at long last. But it's been > everywhere, and for quite some time. I believe we're finally starting > to see the plain light of reason return though. > > Seth > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey wrote: >> >> >> A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by >> operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is >> readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying >> this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did >> with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority >> to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) >> registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for >> routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are >> reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the >> [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like >> domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, >> they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. >> >> >> If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any >> party >> which feels their alleged ?property rights? have been abridged to seek legal >> relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry >> contrary >> to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of >> results >> which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community >> policy. >> >> The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and >> rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The >> Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network >> Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property >> where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and >> updating its registry records. >> >> >> Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an >> expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of >> transfers, and this would be become difficult under a ?IP property address? >> regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to >> recognize >> the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are >> supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been >> issued. >> >> 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 MLindsey at avenue4llc.com Thu Jun 4 17:48:49 2015 From: MLindsey at avenue4llc.com (Marc Lindsey) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 21:48:49 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, The fact that there are no reported cases (yet) ordering ARIN to update its registry due to an abridgement of property rights isn?t evidence that the legal analysis is incorrect. It?s never easy or trivial to prevail in litigation when strong interests sit in opposition -- even if the law clearly favors the harmed party. Discovery tactics, procedural motions, and pre- and post-litigation settlements are all effective tools defendants use to keep disputed matters from going to trial (especially where the matter is of considerable interest and there is a risk of setting undesirable legal precedent). With respect to the property question, under your scenario (with trial plus appeal), winning such a case would be long and expensive for the harmed party. And only worth doing if a less expensive and reasonable resolution were not otherwise available. Until very recently, ARIN could avoid any material harm caused by wrongfully dispossessing a registrant of its numbers by just issuing the affected entity additional numbers. Now that the free pool is virtually depleted and IPv4 numbers have economic value, I anticipate that there will be more formal disputes involving ARIN and the issue of property rights with the increased probability of trial and appeal -- particularly where ARIN takes the position that it alone gets to pick the winner and loser in a dispute between parties making claim to the same resource. But this isn?t the principle reason to consider the issue more closely from a policy perspective. ARIN could easily mitigate its risk. And in the post-exhaustion / transfer market context, whatever risk there is for ARIN in operating under a property regime is outweighed by the benefits to IPv4 registrants. With legally recognized property rights, current registrants and transfer recipients will have well established legal remedies to enforce the uniqueness of their address space and, for transferees, to protect their purchases. Regarding your last point, finding property rights in IPv4 numbers does not require a genesis moment or an express grant by the USG. Nothing in the common law makes these prerequisites. Pre-existing (non-property) resources can evolve into property. And property rights can vest in a current possessor/holder where the prior owner is unknown, or unwilling or unable to enforce its rights (e.g., adverse possession and abandonment). Marc Lindsey Avenue4 LLC 2001 L Street, N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 Direct: (202) 741-9521 Mobile: (202) 491-3230 www.Avenue4LLC.com From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:48 AM To: Marc Lindsey Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey > wrote: A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any party which feels their alleged ?property rights? have been abridged to seek legal relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry contrary to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of results which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community policy. The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and updating its registry records. Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of transfers, and this would be become difficult under a ?IP property address? regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to recognize the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been issued. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drc at virtualized.org Thu Jun 4 18:00:35 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:00:35 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <1804711E-8077-4240-8EA5-AD87643B1B3E@pch.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> <1804711E-8077-4240-8EA5-AD87643B1B3E@pch.net> Message-ID: <51650619-E521-4FAB-A5B9-29515AFCE5BE@virtualized.org> Bill, > On Jun 4, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:29 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> >> Failing to update the contact information of a buyer of heroin means that law enforcement will no longer have records that reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of law enforcement. > > Or something to that effect. Interesting of you to associate IPv4 with heroin. Does that make IPv6 methadone? > But the point of law enforcement is to enforce laws, not to stand by passively and record infractions. As far as I am aware, ARIN is not law enforcement nor are they the Internet Police. They, like the other RIRs, have been entrusted by the global community to provide a very limited set of services documented first in RFC 2050, then in RFC 7020 which obsoleted 2050. Those services are: 1) Allocation Pool Management: irrelevant in this context since there is no allocation pool 2) Hierarchical Allocation: irrelevant in this context since nothing is being allocated 3) Registration Accuracy: relevant in this context. You will note in that list that "enforcing needs based justification in exchanges of already allocated address space between private parties" is not actually listed. The fact that ARIN provides additional services to the ARIN community is perfectly fine (as long as that community agrees of course), but those services do not override the core functionality requirements, such as ensuring registry accuracy, provided to the Internet community as a whole. > Just as the point of a regulatory agency is to act in the public good, not just stand by and document infractions. As I've said repeatedly, I would have no argument with ARIN _documenting_ non-conformance to ARIN community agreed policies. Documenting non-conformance to local policy does not damage registry accuracy (one could argue it improves it). Ignoring updates to the registry does, and not just for the ARIN community, but to the Internet community as a whole. > That?s like the ISO 9000 alternative to governance. Screw up as much as you like, but document in triplicate. Not actually useful. On the contrary. Having accurate information on the source of attacks can be quite useful, at least in an operational sense for real law enforcement, anti-abuse folks, consumer protection groups, etc. But those aren't ARIN's roles. Operating a registry is not being Johnny Lawman on the Internet. Sorry if that's too boring for you. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From drc at virtualized.org Thu Jun 4 18:25:53 2015 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:25:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <98F9BB62-ACA9-47A3-8EF8-0D83CD81A428@arin.net> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> <98F9BB62-ACA9-47A3-8EF8-0D83CD81A428@arin.net> Message-ID: <526DE80C-2E93-43DA-A1AA-DA93804EA826@virtualized.org> John, On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:22 AM, John Curran wrote: > 1) Should we update the entry for those cases where there is a party with effective > ?possession? (i.e. use) of an address block but the original address holder cannot > be contacted or found? Yes, but I'd mark such records in the registration database as 'tentative' (or some such). > 2) Similarly, should we update the entry when a party has been using an address block > for some time, and is still actively using it, but there is a dispute about the meaning > of paperwork between the party and present address holder in the registry? The approach Postel chose in such cases was to leave things as they were until there was consensus among the contesting parties. It has worked (more or less) in the TLD space at IANA, I think it is a reasonable course of action. > 3) We presently have some practices regarding what documentation we require when > a party asserts to now have the rights to IP address block via merger/acquisition > You can see specifics here -> > May we waive the documentation requirements if the party who asserts such can > demonstrate that they have operational control of the IP address block? I'd probably use the 'tentative' (or some such) status in these case, but I suspect it's context sensitive. The overarching point is that augmenting the database to provide additional information related to policy conformance can be beneficial for the consumers of the database. Not updating records is the opposite. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From matthew at matthew.at Thu Jun 4 18:41:11 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:41:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <55707595.5010700@matthew.at> <5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <5570D407.10706@matthew.at> On 6/4/2015 9:31 AM, John Curran wrote: > > Matthew - > > Bingo! What exactly was transferred by that contract, The exclusive right to use those addresses on the global Internet. > and how did the original party have the > ?rights? that they claimed to sell to Mike? Depends on how the original party obtained the address allocation. Might be legacy, might be from ARIN, might be from another source. > If it?s rights in the registry, we know those only transfer > per the policies of the community. We know that the right to be listed in the registry only transfers per the policy, but maybe that's not the most important right (see below) > If it?s something else, where do those rights originate and > what exactly are the rights being sold? > > We?ve got many transfers of address blocks being done where the > contract says ?transfer of > the rights to use and be associated with the IP address entry in the > Internet number registry? > For such transfers, the original party can show the RSA or LRSA as > proof that they have the > rights to which they speak, or can point to the Whois and ask ARIN (as > the registry admin) to > confirm such if they do not happen to have an L/RSA. In such cases, > the recipient receives > the same rights. All of this is fairly clear, and makes a lot of > sense to judges (at least from > my decade or so dealing with it.) Makes sense. And yet those transfer contracts are almost certainly *still legally binding contracts on the seller and buyer* even if after you do your thing, you decide not to change the registration (say, because you decide the need test isn't met). If the contract calls for reversion in that case, then great. If it doesn't, then the legal contract still holds. This is no different than what happens if I sell my house to you, and sign the bill of sale after you give me the money, and then you decide that you'd rather not take that down to the county recorder's office. Who owns the house? You. Who has the right you occupy the house? You. Who is taking some additional risk by having an unrecorded transfer of title? You again (and me, a little, to the extent the tax collector uses those records to bill me). But it is most certainly not the case that a failure to record a sale means "that it didn't happen". When you say that "a transfer didn't happen because it wasn't recorded in the ARIN database", that is what it sounds like you're saying, and where I think you're wrong. > > In the alternative formulation, someone sold Mike (as you put it) the > "the right to use those > integers as addresses on the global Internet?? Might be what the contract said, might be what you said. Not sure. But certainly someone could, if they had a unique address assignment, sell him the right to use those uniquely-assigned integers (and the seller would be losing whatever rights they had sold) > It is not at all clear how someone ever > obtained that right so that it could be sold, or even how that right > is enforceable since ?the > global Internet? would imply the entities that operate the global > routing table. Maybe that would be poor wording. But Mike could still keep the seller from asserting whatever rights they had sold to Mike. > > Do you believe that ARIN issues " "the right to use those integers as > addresses on the global > Internet? with our IPv4 and IPv6 blocks that we assign out today? No. I believe that ARIN provides some assurance of uniqueness and a convenient centralized place for registration records. > > I know that legally we have no way of stating we are giving someone > ?the right to use those > integers as addresses on the global Internet? - at best, we can say > that we provide them > exclusive association and use in the Internet numbers registry system, > including the right > to transfer in accordance with policy. The right to "transfer the registration in your database" in accordance with policy. They have lots of other rights, and many are exercising them. Like the right to let someone else temporarily use them. And, I would argue (perhaps especially for addresses not encumbered by the RSA or LRSA) the right to actually "transfer" the rights to use them to another party *whether or not* ARIN policy is followed. > > (Mind you, we could actually say ?the exclusive right to use in the > global Internet routing table > as maintained by ARIN?s registry users? but doing that would require > that ARIN?s registry users > be obligated to only route blocks on behalf of the parties listed in > the registry? does anyone > really want this obligation with the Internet numbers registry system? One could argue that the backers of the RPKI want exactly this. The legal challenges should be interesting. > As someone whose run > several Internet service providers, I personally wouldn?t wish that if > I were still doing so, but > ?rights? have to come from somewhere and if they are anything more > that rights to entries in > the registry, we need to figure out fairly quickly what they are, and > how they are made real.) Coming soon, no doubt. > > As I said earlier, all of this becomes quite important if parties are > to have legal rights that they > can rely upon and enforce in court. > In this country, people can assert rights and sue pretty much whenever they want, and have those enforced (or not) in court. Whether or not laws are passed or more policies are created. Matthew Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 18:42:54 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 22:42:54 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0A0E84D6-2A39-43ED-B298-0019B2F7BDC3@arin.net> On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Marc Lindsey > wrote: John, The fact that there are no reported cases (yet) ordering ARIN to update its registry due to an abridgement of property rights isn?t evidence that the legal analysis is incorrect. It?s never easy or trivial to prevail in litigation when strong interests sit in opposition -- even if the law clearly favors the harmed party. Discovery tactics, procedural motions, and pre- and post-litigation settlements are all effective tools defendants use to keep disputed matters from going to trial (especially where the matter is of considerable interest and there is a risk of setting undesirable legal precedent). Agreed. ? Now that the free pool is virtually depleted and IPv4 numbers have economic value, I anticipate that there will be more formal disputes involving ARIN and the issue of property rights with the increased probability of trial and appeal -- particularly where ARIN takes the position that it alone gets to pick the winner and loser in a dispute between parties making claim to the same resource. I will note that ARIN?s stance with respect to disputed resources is to lock the records to preserve status quo, and direct the parties to work out the dispute, including litigation if they so desire - ARIN will support with factual information about the history of the disputed resources in the registry, but our role ends there; i.e. it is incorrect to state that "ARIN takes the position that it alone gets to pick the winner and loser in a dispute between parties making claim to the same resource." ... Regarding your last point, finding property rights in IPv4 numbers does not require a genesis moment or an express grant by the USG. Nothing in the common law makes these prerequisites. Pre-existing (non-property) resources can evolve into property. And property rights can vest in a current possessor/holder where the prior owner is unknown, or unwilling or unable to enforce its rights (e.g., adverse possession and abandonment). Indeed, Marc, but that process will start with a precise definition of the interest? Either you will need to define that as rights to the address block entry in the registry (rights beyond those stated by ARIN), or you will need conjure some other rights in which the address holder has an interest, and state the party with the corresponding obligation, in order to show that there is an impact to these interests by the actions of the registry. You postulate that ?(1) IP number registrants have sole authority to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for routing over the public Internet?, but in order to claim those as rights, then you?ll first need to show that they are actually enforceable against some party other than the registry (as we do not control ?routing of the public Internet? ) I am not aware of any circumstance in which a service provider?s routing has been ordered changed pursuant to enforcement of the ?rights? you hypothesize above, so you?ll definitely have your work cut out for you... /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Thu Jun 4 18:45:03 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:45:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning In-Reply-To: <51650619-E521-4FAB-A5B9-29515AFCE5BE@virtualized.org> References: <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> <1804711E-8077-4240-8EA5-AD87643B1B3E@pch.net> <51650619-E521-4FAB-A5B9-29515AFCE5BE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5570D4EF.3030806@matthew.at> On 6/4/2015 3:00 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > As far as I am aware, ARIN is not law enforcement nor are they the Internet Police. They, like the other RIRs, have been entrusted by the global community to provide a very limited set of services documented first in RFC 2050, then in RFC 7020 which obsoleted 2050. Those services are: > > 1) Allocation Pool Management: irrelevant in this context since there is no allocation pool > 2) Hierarchical Allocation: irrelevant in this context since nothing is being allocated > 3) Registration Accuracy: relevant in this context. > > You will note in that list that "enforcing needs based justification in exchanges of already allocated address space between private parties" is not actually listed. The fact that ARIN provides additional services to the ARIN community is perfectly fine (as long as that community agrees of course), but those services do not override the core functionality requirements, such as ensuring registry accuracy, provided to the Internet community as a whole. > You can also note that while RFC2050 mentions "transfer" exactly once, without definition, it is now obsolted by RFC7020 which doesn't mention "transfer" even once. Should we conclude that meddling in transfers is out of scope for the registry then? Matthew Kaufman From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 4 18:46:34 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 18:46:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <51650619-E521-4FAB-A5B9-29515AFCE5BE@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> <1804711E-8077-4240-8EA5-AD87643B1B3E@pch.net> <51650619-E521-4FAB-A5B9-29515AFCE5BE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:00 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Interesting of you to associate IPv4 with heroin. Does that make IPv6 methadone? I'm pretty sure we're supposed to huff IPv6, not inject it. It's some kind of newfangled aerosol. -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From matthew at matthew.at Thu Jun 4 18:48:08 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:48:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5570D407.10706@matthew.at> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <55707595.5010700@matthew.at> <5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net> <5570D407.10706@matthew.at> Message-ID: <5570D5A8.6080907@matthew.at> On 6/4/2015 3:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/4/2015 9:31 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >> Matthew - >> >> Bingo! What exactly was transferred by that contract, > > The exclusive right to use those addresses on the global Internet. Or, more specifically, the exclusive right of uniqueness of those particular numbers - as used as addresses on the global Internet. Matthew Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 18:47:31 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 18:47:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > Even today, you don't find the term "intellectual property" in our > copyright statutes. It's in a few footnotes to things that are named > that way. But the law is just what it is: statutory exclusive rights. > In a tricky area, to be sure: how do we have exclusive rights in > original expression, but not facts and ideas? But it always returns, > because the truth of it is ineffable. . . . And, inconceivable! I might add. :-) My thesaurus says "ineluctible" is the word I need for what I was trying to convey here. (eom) > The same applies in other areas of the law as well. > > This is Enlightenment thought: > http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html > > Declaring that all policy is best "privatized and deregulated" doesn't > make it so. Maybe in many or perhaps even most areas, but have a clue > about where it's nonsense. :-) > > > Seth > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> Yeah, there's been no lack of "theory" since the 80's trying to >> concoct this bizarre notion of owning pure abstraction. >> >> The courts have long engaged specifically on the question of how to >> distinguish the non-ownability of information from the subject matter >> of information-related areas in which rights are accorded and >> recognized. It's just basic post-Enlightenment thought and law. Some >> are "propertarian" and try hard to make the law work that way. But >> you can't eliminate the most basic foundations of our civil order >> (often manifest in common law reasoning) just by wishing them away -- >> thankfully. The legacy of law doesn't disappear, even after 30-odd >> years of broad-reaching efforts throughout our institutions to subvert >> it. Especially in common law. Judges there have to try to deal in >> reality. If they try to act like you can own pure information, they >> rapidly run aground. So, it just doesn't happen. Perhaps the biggest >> institutional register of this more recent trend to attempt to apply >> radical privatization even to pure information has been the DC >> Circuit. But it's running aground, too, at long last. But it's been >> everywhere, and for quite some time. I believe we're finally starting >> to see the plain light of reason return though. >> >> Seth >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:48 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey wrote: >>> >>> >>> A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by >>> operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is >>> readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying >>> this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did >>> with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority >>> to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) >>> registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for >>> routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are >>> reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the >>> [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like >>> domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, >>> they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. >>> >>> >>> If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any >>> party >>> which feels their alleged ?property rights? have been abridged to seek legal >>> relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry >>> contrary >>> to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of >>> results >>> which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community >>> policy. >>> >>> The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and >>> rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The >>> Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network >>> Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property >>> where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and >>> updating its registry records. >>> >>> >>> Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an >>> expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of >>> transfers, and this would be become difficult under a ?IP property address? >>> regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to >>> recognize >>> the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are >>> supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been >>> issued. >>> >>> 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 18:48:03 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 18:48:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' Message-ID: Apparently for you, the principal reason to "consider the issue more closely from a policy perspective" is to try to present a theory of property in information (and to do so here, in this venue, at this time for whatever reason). If you were really pursuing a reasonable line of reasoning and presentation, you'd at least offer a variety of theories, relating the claim of harm to areas one can hang one's hat on better, maybe theories about how one can reasonably expect to be treated in terms of expected practices. Trying to make out a claim that one owns pure information without talking about other ways one could ground a try-able charge (and save court costs in attempting a case that's easily identified as tendentious) is just weird. Have a proper discussion of the harms involved and how they could be tried in some more grounded ways, if you're really concerned about "risks." Or if you're left with a simply claim of property in pure information by some process of elimination, tell us how you get there, how any other approach fails. Otherwise you're just looking strange to me. Seth On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Marc Lindsey wrote: > John, > > > > The fact that there are no reported cases (yet) ordering ARIN to update its > registry due to an abridgement of property rights isn?t evidence that the > legal analysis is incorrect. It?s never easy or trivial to prevail in > litigation when strong interests sit in opposition -- even if the law > clearly favors the harmed party. Discovery tactics, procedural motions, and > pre- and post-litigation settlements are all effective tools defendants use > to keep disputed matters from going to trial (especially where the matter is > of considerable interest and there is a risk of setting undesirable legal > precedent). > > > > With respect to the property question, under your scenario (with trial plus > appeal), winning such a case would be long and expensive for the harmed > party. And only worth doing if a less expensive and reasonable resolution > were not otherwise available. Until very recently, ARIN could avoid any > material harm caused by wrongfully dispossessing a registrant of its numbers > by just issuing the affected entity additional numbers. Now that the free > pool is virtually depleted and IPv4 numbers have economic value, I > anticipate that there will be more formal disputes involving ARIN and the > issue of property rights with the increased probability of trial and appeal > -- particularly where ARIN takes the position that it alone gets to pick the > winner and loser in a dispute between parties making claim to the same > resource. > > > > But this isn?t the principle reason to consider the issue more closely from > a policy perspective. ARIN could easily mitigate its risk. And in the > post-exhaustion / transfer market context, whatever risk there is for ARIN > in operating under a property regime is outweighed by the benefits to IPv4 > registrants. With legally recognized property rights, current registrants > and transfer recipients will have well established legal remedies to enforce > the uniqueness of their address space and, for transferees, to protect their > purchases. > > > > Regarding your last point, finding property rights in IPv4 numbers does not > require a genesis moment or an express grant by the USG. Nothing in the > common law makes these prerequisites. Pre-existing (non-property) resources > can evolve into property. And property rights can vest in a current > possessor/holder where the prior owner is unknown, or unwilling or unable to > enforce its rights (e.g., adverse possession and abandonment). > > > > Marc Lindsey > Avenue4 LLC > 2001 L Street, N.W. > Suite 900 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > Direct: (202) 741-9521 > > Mobile: (202) 491-3230 > > www.Avenue4LLC.com > > > > > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:48 AM > To: Marc Lindsey > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' > > > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey wrote: > > > > A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by > operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is > readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying > this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did > with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority > to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) > registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for > routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are > reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the > [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like > domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, > they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. > > > > If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any > party > > which feels their alleged ?property rights? have been abridged to seek legal > > relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry > contrary > > to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of > results > > which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community > policy. > > > > The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and > rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The > Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network > Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property > where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and > updating its registry records. > > > > Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an > > expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of > > transfers, and this would be become difficult under a ?IP property address? > > regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to > recognize > > the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are > > supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been > > issued. > > > > 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 Thu Jun 4 19:09:15 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 23:09:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning In-Reply-To: <5570D4EF.3030806@matthew.at> References: <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> <1804711E-8077-4240-8EA5-AD87643B1B3E@pch.net> <51650619-E521-4FAB-A5B9-29515AFCE5BE@virtualized.org> <5570D4EF.3030806@matthew.at> Message-ID: <2CAD409B-BB8B-4B38-A1BB-EA9074F765B5@corp.arin.net> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: You can also note that while RFC2050 mentions "transfer" exactly once, without definition, it is now obsolted by RFC7020 which doesn't mention "transfer" even once. RFC 2050 was recognized as quite dated, and a number of folks went about an effort to update it. Efforts were made to keep the language in RFC 7020 describing the Internet Number Registry system as objective as possible, and you can look in the acknowledgements section if you?re curious about the many participants involved. (I would be remiss if I did not specifically call out David Conrad for his reluctant but highly effective efforts to keep the document neutral in its descriptive text? :-) One of the most significant reasons RFC 2050 was dated is due to the inclusion of detailed registry policy in the document, whereas RFC 7020 specifically does not include any statement of registry policy, focusing instead on the goals and structure of the overall system (i.e. a document which we?ve needed for some time and now have available.) Should we conclude that meddling in transfers is out of scope for the registry then? RFC 7020 notes that "The RIRs also conduct regional number policy development used in the administration of the number resources for which they are responsible.?, i.e. it all depends on what policy is developed in this regard. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 4 19:39:09 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 19:39:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > Trying to make out a claim > that one owns pure information without talking about other ways one > could ground a try-able charge (and save court costs in attempting a > case that's easily identified as tendentious) is just weird. Hi Seth, Meaning no disrespect, but Marc is a lawyer who whether right or wrong has surely invested a sufficient portion of his life learning the intricacies of law to speak with some authority on the subject. You would do us all a courtesy by spending at least some effort learning about intangible property before challenging his statements as "weird." Also: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Thanks, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 19:51:49 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 19:51:49 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> Trying to make out a claim >> that one owns pure information without talking about other ways one >> could ground a try-able charge (and save court costs in attempting a >> case that's easily identified as tendentious) is just weird. > > Hi Seth, > > Meaning no disrespect, but Marc is a lawyer who whether right or wrong > has surely invested a sufficient portion of his life learning the > intricacies of law to speak with some authority on the subject. You > would do us all a courtesy by spending at least some effort learning > about intangible property before challenging his statements as > "weird." You'd do us a courtesy by recognizing the difference between intangible property (of which there's all kinds) and ostensible rights in pure information. Seth > Also: > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > Thanks, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jun 4 19:56:34 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 23:56:34 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) In-Reply-To: <526DE80C-2E93-43DA-A1AA-DA93804EA826@virtualized.org> References: <2078c5d4ff344579a675bc10dd7d27cd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <359F49C3-3344-4E5E-A510-31E1DB8CDC70@delong.com> <556BBFD7.7080804@matthew.at> <75B868C7-AF3F-4B76-B205-BD3419441C05@corp.arin.net> <8851FDB5-8E5B-4798-ADEC-83875D8B03AF@virtualized.org> <402CA802-A872-45E4-93D0-93EFA509122B@arin.net> <0BBC3648-E269-4B90-9495-64A2C6750E09@virtualized.org> <98A7548F-EE05-4243-A6B3-35140922B52B@virtualized.org> <6E6A2A67-C0F4-4013-9414-2123177B9C07@arin.net> <0CE2735C-E3DB-4DEF-A0D3-C3F823C165FE@virtualized.org> <2EB54FD4-895E-4D8D-8006-1DD4A56D91A2@arin.net> <6896405B-61DF-43FA-AEC7-15EEE96A0745@virtualized.org> <9FB62936-1353-433C-A281-44F7E3BBE94E@arin.net> <78C72AE5-9985-4FDB-A13B-29F82801DD2E@virtualized.org> <98F9BB62-ACA9-47A3-8EF8-0D83CD81A428@arin.net> <526DE80C-2E93-43DA-A1AA-DA93804EA826@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <11C1B1E1-D9F3-4330-9B07-D3211373E114@arin.net> > On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > John, > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:22 AM, John Curran > wrote: >> 1) Should we update the entry for those cases where there is a party with effective >> ?possession? (i.e. use) of an address block but the original address holder cannot >> be contacted or found? > > Yes, but I'd mark such records in the registration database as 'tentative' (or some such). Interesting - 1) After what period of time of missing the original holder? 2) Considering that this action would replace existing information, would it be perhaps better to add additional fields for it? 3) We would need to be extremely certain about how we go about ?releasing? these rights based on registry policy (as there?s unlikely to be directly applicable adverse possession precedent); this effectively would rationalize hijacking against ?defunct' organizations (might not be a bad thing, but wanted to be very clear on this aspect) >> 2) Similarly, should we update the entry when a party has been using an address block >> for some time, and is still actively using it, but there is a dispute about the meaning >> of paperwork between the party and present address holder in the registry? > > The approach Postel chose in such cases was to leave things as they were until there was consensus among the contesting parties. It has worked (more or less) in the TLD space at IANA, I think it is a reasonable course of action. Our practices presently mirror this approach - we preserve the status quo and presume that the parties will reach consensus amongst themselves (or seek redress via the legal system) >> 3) We presently have some practices regarding what documentation we require when >> a party asserts to now have the rights to IP address block via merger/acquisition >> You can see specifics here -> >> May we waive the documentation requirements if the party who asserts such can >> demonstrate that they have operational control of the IP address block? > > I'd probably use the 'tentative' (or some such) status in these case, but I suspect it's context sensitive. > > The overarching point is that augmenting the database to provide additional information related to policy conformance can be beneficial for the consumers of the database. Not updating records is the opposite. Very interesting concepts. There is a question of whether doing this is a worthwhile investment - i.e. it?s unclear if such fields would ever be used w.r.t IPv6, and there may be more efficient ways of resolving the current situation (although it hasn?t happened over the last decade?) If there?s a number of folks who have interest in this approach, it could be worth considering policy in this area. I?ll eave it to you and the rest of the community on ppml to explore the options. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rockymm8 at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 21:23:38 2015 From: rockymm8 at gmail.com (Rocky) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 09:23:38 +0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi William, Same as the CNNIC, KRNIC, VINNIC, IDNIC and NIXI ( Indian NIR) do not allow to transfer their IPv4 addresses out of their NIRs. > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 12:48:21 -0400 > From: William Herrin > To: Matthew Kaufman > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net (mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net)" > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > On 6/3/2015 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > > > > > The one where it ends up in private hands who aren't allowed to sell it to > > > me even if they want to? Possibly other problems, but at the very least that > > > one. > > > > > > > > > Exactly. All that the existing policies are doing is making it harder for > > people who want to buy space from people who have it to sell to do so. > > > > > That's why I'm in favor of easy in-region transfers yet very much > against out-region transfers. With out-region transfers, addresses > land at places like CNNIC where subsequent out-region transfers are > apparently not just against policy, they're illegal. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com (mailto:herrin at dirtside.com) bill at herrin.us (mailto:bill at herrin.us) > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > > > ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 00:32:43 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 00:32:43 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I owe Marc an apology because his commentary was not actually weird in the ways I thought based on reading this message colored by the part of the thread I had read. This is my own error, which I accept responsibility for, resulting from a failure to track how he was actually contributing, probably based on my surprise and mistaken impression that the thread as a whole was discussing the idea of owning pure information based on the common law (as Bill Herrin's argumentation on "Documentary Intangible Property" tended more toward). (I will first make this comment and set it aside: I question federal common law reasoning, both as a matter of principle [Federal common law was held to be antithetical to the federal constitution by Madison and others; and at least in theory/principle the period of federal common law that started in 1842 with Swift v Tyson ended in 1938 with Erie v Tompkins], and as a practical concern [I believe this period of federal common law accounts for a lot of dubious precedent in areas that should have been left to political channels ? notably precedents regarding the nature of the corporate form]. If federal common law is cooking up private property rights in information, I?d first question it on that basis. Given that this is hardly a generally acknowledged concern, I?ll set this point aside. I don?t know whether Marc is referring to state common law in the 9th Circuit or elsewhere, or federal common law [perhaps of the 9th Circuit or elsewhere]; I?ll just assume he's talking in terms of a general federal common law.) Based on your previous comment (Marc), I see that you are not entering an argument for a common law property right to pure information as such, but you are in fact presenting principles of common law you hold would convert IP addresses as a type of resource as used in the registry from commons to private property. You are not making a case for a private property right in IP addresses as pure information, but rather for IP addresses as a resource used in the particular context of the registry and its uses. You maintain that registrants can claim a private property interest in their IP addresses as such a resource, since they have an interest in deciding how their IP numbers will be used on the Internet, and in using them exclusively, and can substantiate their exclusivity through the registry as well as on the basis of the value and scarcity of IPv4 numbers. You are not making an argument for ownership of pure information derived from common law, as I thought based on the part of the thread I had read, giving the power to control its use beyond the context of the registry and its uses. And you are in fact at least indirectly alluding to the kinds of harms that might result from losing exclusivity in the use of the IP address as it functions on the Internet -- not weirdly leaving it out as I said in this message. I'm not sure what I would say beyond a general doubt that a judge would easily take the kind of collaborative context in which the registries are maintained, and in which numbers are understood as arbitrary signifiers with less semantic significance than domain names, and let it become a private propertied domain, based on those principles. Excludability seems to me to be affected by the arbitrary nature of numeric addresses, and you seem to key the move to exclusivity based on the value of scarce IPv4 addresses. If they are scarce, they don't seem distinctive as domain names are. And I am dubious of how correct or well-applied your claim actually is, that the common law would accord control and access or exclusivity to registrants in line with a private property conclusion, on the basis of scarcity and value in the way you suggest. Seth On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > Apparently for you, the principal reason to "consider the issue more > closely from a policy perspective" is to try to present a theory of > property in information (and to do so here, in this venue, at this > time for whatever reason). If you were really pursuing a reasonable > line of reasoning and presentation, you'd at least offer a variety of > theories, relating the claim of harm to areas one can hang one's hat > on better, maybe theories about how one can reasonably expect to be > treated in terms of expected practices. Trying to make out a claim > that one owns pure information without talking about other ways one > could ground a try-able charge (and save court costs in attempting a > case that's easily identified as tendentious) is just weird. Have a > proper discussion of the harms involved and how they could be tried in > some more grounded ways, if you're really concerned about "risks." Or > if you're left with a simply claim of property in pure information by > some process of elimination, tell us how you get there, how any other > approach fails. Otherwise you're just looking strange to me. > > > Seth > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Marc Lindsey wrote: >> John, >> >> >> >> The fact that there are no reported cases (yet) ordering ARIN to update its >> registry due to an abridgement of property rights isn?t evidence that the >> legal analysis is incorrect. It?s never easy or trivial to prevail in >> litigation when strong interests sit in opposition -- even if the law >> clearly favors the harmed party. Discovery tactics, procedural motions, and >> pre- and post-litigation settlements are all effective tools defendants use >> to keep disputed matters from going to trial (especially where the matter is >> of considerable interest and there is a risk of setting undesirable legal >> precedent). >> >> >> >> With respect to the property question, under your scenario (with trial plus >> appeal), winning such a case would be long and expensive for the harmed >> party. And only worth doing if a less expensive and reasonable resolution >> were not otherwise available. Until very recently, ARIN could avoid any >> material harm caused by wrongfully dispossessing a registrant of its numbers >> by just issuing the affected entity additional numbers. Now that the free >> pool is virtually depleted and IPv4 numbers have economic value, I >> anticipate that there will be more formal disputes involving ARIN and the >> issue of property rights with the increased probability of trial and appeal >> -- particularly where ARIN takes the position that it alone gets to pick the >> winner and loser in a dispute between parties making claim to the same >> resource. >> >> >> >> But this isn?t the principle reason to consider the issue more closely from >> a policy perspective. ARIN could easily mitigate its risk. And in the >> post-exhaustion / transfer market context, whatever risk there is for ARIN >> in operating under a property regime is outweighed by the benefits to IPv4 >> registrants. With legally recognized property rights, current registrants >> and transfer recipients will have well established legal remedies to enforce >> the uniqueness of their address space and, for transferees, to protect their >> purchases. >> >> >> >> Regarding your last point, finding property rights in IPv4 numbers does not >> require a genesis moment or an express grant by the USG. Nothing in the >> common law makes these prerequisites. Pre-existing (non-property) resources >> can evolve into property. And property rights can vest in a current >> possessor/holder where the prior owner is unknown, or unwilling or unable to >> enforce its rights (e.g., adverse possession and abandonment). >> >> >> >> Marc Lindsey >> Avenue4 LLC >> 2001 L Street, N.W. >> Suite 900 >> Washington, D.C. 20036 >> Direct: (202) 741-9521 >> >> Mobile: (202) 491-3230 >> >> www.Avenue4LLC.com >> >> >> >> >> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] >> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:48 AM >> To: Marc Lindsey >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' >> >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Marc Lindsey wrote: >> >> >> >> A court asked to decide on the property status of IPv4 numbers would, by >> operation of judicial precedents, apply this property law test because it is >> readily extendable to IPv4 numbers. We would also expect that, applying >> this test, the court would reach the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did >> with respect to domain names: (1) IP number registrants have sole authority >> to decide how their numbers will be used within the Internet; (2) >> registrants have the right and authority to use IPv4 numbers exclusively for >> routing over the public Internet; and (3) like domain names, registrants are >> reflected in an authorized Internet registry, which "informs others that the >> [IPv4 number] is the registrant's and no one else's." IPv4 numbers, like >> domain names, are now considered a valuable asset, and like domain names, >> they possess all of the requisite ingredients of private property. >> >> >> >> If your supposition is correct, then it should be a trivial matter for any >> party >> >> which feels their alleged ?property rights? have been abridged to seek legal >> >> relief, so as to obtain an order directing ARIN to update the registry >> contrary >> >> to policy. This has not occurred to date - instead, we have a string of >> results >> >> which have ARIN updating the registry in compliance with its community >> policy. >> >> >> >> The Kremen v. Cohen case also sheds some light on why ARIN firmly (and >> rationally) advocates the position that IP addresses are not property. The >> Kremen court found that the domain name registry at the time, Network >> Solutions, could be held liable for wrongfully converting another's property >> where it failed to observe an appropriate duty of care in maintaining and >> updating its registry records. >> >> >> >> Actually, my principle concern is that the community currently maintains an >> >> expectation regarding the application of registry policies in processing of >> >> transfers, and this would be become difficult under a ?IP property address? >> >> regime. Additionally, it is unclear if any party has the authority to >> recognize >> >> the transfers of US Government property or whether we at the registry are >> >> supposed to be simply recording the present party to whom these have been >> >> issued. >> >> >> >> 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 narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 5 00:53:03 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201506050453.t554r3sD021127@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 171 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 5 00:53:03 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.73% | 44 | 23.50% | 552017 | jcurran at arin.net 14.04% | 24 | 7.51% | 176316 | bill at herrin.us 11.11% | 19 | 7.75% | 181919 | matthew at matthew.at 7.02% | 12 | 10.16% | 238662 | owen at delong.com 3.51% | 6 | 7.91% | 185700 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 6.43% | 11 | 4.86% | 114142 | drc at virtualized.org 6.43% | 11 | 4.82% | 113301 | seth.p.johnson at gmail.com 3.51% | 6 | 5.87% | 137880 | jschiller at google.com 3.51% | 6 | 4.09% | 96107 | mike at iptrading.com 2.34% | 4 | 4.28% | 100429 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com 2.34% | 4 | 4.21% | 98827 | mueller at syr.edu 2.92% | 5 | 2.34% | 54982 | woody at pch.net 2.34% | 4 | 2.02% | 47400 | david.huberman at microsoft.com 1.17% | 2 | 2.62% | 61586 | rockymm8 at gmail.com 1.75% | 3 | 1.31% | 30681 | athompso at athompso.net 1.17% | 2 | 1.71% | 40241 | mlindsey at avenue4llc.com 0.58% | 1 | 2.03% | 47738 | aaron at wholesaleinternet.net 1.17% | 2 | 1.17% | 27458 | mwinters at edwardrose.com 0.58% | 1 | 0.66% | 15603 | rjletts at uw.edu 0.58% | 1 | 0.32% | 7463 | alh-ietf at tndh.net 0.58% | 1 | 0.32% | 7434 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.58% | 1 | 0.29% | 6904 | bcornett at servlet.com 0.58% | 1 | 0.25% | 5943 | aaronmg at cotc.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 171 |100.00% | 2348733 | Total From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 5 06:51:09 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:51:09 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5570D407.10706@matthew.at> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <55707595.5010700@matthew.at> <5CB3B821-F207-4305-9202-DEB8CC601205@corp.arin.net> <5570D407.10706@matthew.at> Message-ID: > On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > On 6/4/2015 9:31 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >> Matthew - >> >> Bingo! What exactly was transferred by that contract, > > The exclusive right to use those addresses on the global Internet. Please explain the origin of this right and the chain of custody for that right from the origin to the resource holder. Further, please explain your definition of ?the global internet? as there are many possible definitions and no such precise definition exists as yet in policy, the ARIN RSA, or any RFC or other internet document I have been able to find. There are many possible definitions, some more inclusive than others and depending on the scope you ascribe to this definition, it may or may not impinge several existing cases of overlapping address usage that have continued for many years. >> and how did the original party have the >> ?rights? that they claimed to sell to Mike? > > Depends on how the original party obtained the address allocation. Might be legacy, might be from ARIN, might be from another source. I don?t think this answers the question. If you feel that there are different rights cases, please explain each of them as requested above. The origin of that right in question (who is the initial creator and by what process were they able to have such control, the mechanism by which they granted the rights, and at least the general cases of the chain of custody of those rights). I would argue that there is no entity which can truly be defined to be ?the global internet?. Further, the right to put numbers into a router belongs exclusively to the administrative owner of said router. The right to accept or decline the announcement of numbers from a neighboring router likewise belongs solely to the administrative owner of said router. ?The global internet? as a body to which exclusive rights can be conveyed is a convenient fiction which can be generally accepted until one subjects it to any level of detailed analysis. ?The global internet? is, in reality, a term bandied about for convenience to describe a multitude of different ideas all of which roughly resemble some level of widely connected independently operated networks each of which is under the exclusive control of their respective operators and not subject to any control by the IETF, RIRs, IAB, ICANN, IANA, or any other organization other than to the extent voluntarily agreed to in agreements signed with those organizations. As such, if $PEERA and $PEERB want to use numbers issued to you by an RIR on their network and refuse to peer with your network or accept any announcements of your autonomous system to their network, they are free to do so. If their customers complain, so be it. They are free to become customers of a different provider. Are you really making the argument that you can force $PEERA and $PEERB to peer with you and accept your route(s) or somehow compel them to accept your routes via other means? If not, even though they are ?on the global internet?, and are using ?your addresses? in violation of your ?exclusive right to use?, it?s hard to see what sort of claim you could make absent that use creating some form of conflict for your users. You might be able to argue the inability of their customers to reach your users, but even if they stopped using your addresses, that situation would persist, so I?m not sure how that argument holds absent the ability to also compel them to make your network reachable through peering or some other mechanism. > >> If it?s rights in the registry, we know those only transfer >> per the policies of the community. > > We know that the right to be listed in the registry only transfers per the policy, but maybe that's not the most important right (see below) It may not be the most important right, but so far, it?s the only one which clearly exists. >> If it?s something else, where do those rights originate and >> what exactly are the rights being sold? >> >> We?ve got many transfers of address blocks being done where the contract says ?transfer of >> the rights to use and be associated with the IP address entry in the Internet number registry? >> For such transfers, the original party can show the RSA or LRSA as proof that they have the >> rights to which they speak, or can point to the Whois and ask ARIN (as the registry admin) to >> confirm such if they do not happen to have an L/RSA. In such cases, the recipient receives >> the same rights. All of this is fairly clear, and makes a lot of sense to judges (at least from >> my decade or so dealing with it.) > > Makes sense. > > And yet those transfer contracts are almost certainly *still legally binding contracts on the seller and buyer* even if after you do your thing, you decide not to change the registration (say, because you decide the need test isn't met). If the contract calls for reversion in that case, then great. If it doesn't, then the legal contract still holds. Sure, but they aren?t binding on the RIR or any other third party. Nobody else has to accept advertisement of those prefixes from either the buyer or the seller. Nobody else has to forward any traffic to either of them. There?s nothing that compels the rest of the internet to in any way respect that contract or even the original registry. > This is no different than what happens if I sell my house to you, and sign the bill of sale after you give me the money, and then you decide that you'd rather not take that down to the county recorder's office. Who owns the house? You. Who has the right you occupy the house? You. Who is taking some additional risk by having an unrecorded transfer of title? You again (and me, a little, to the extent the tax collector uses those records to bill me). But it is most certainly not the case that a failure to record a sale means "that it didn't happen". When you say that "a transfer didn't happen because it wasn't recorded in the ARIN database", that is what it sounds like you're saying, and where I think you're wrong. There?s a huge difference. Your house is well documented real estate. There are a number of statutes and regulations around its sale which have the full force of law and the government behind them. The registrar of the transfer in that case is an agency of the government, not an NGO. Further, the transfer of your house doesn?t require recognition by anyone else that the address now belongs to the other party. You cannot likely win a lawsuit against $RANDOM_PERSON who has no business relationship to you because they continue to attempt to reach you at the address of the house you sold. Further, the recipient of such mail is also unlikely to have a case unless it rises to the level of harassment. If someone else puts that address into a web form at random because they needed an address and they happened to make that one up, there?s also no violation of any exclusive right in question. Further, the government can move the address from that house to a different house at any time it chooses and the house will have a new address. The rights to the address are not transferred in the sale of a house, merely the rights to the real property. If you sell your network, nobody is questioning that. OTOH, if you sell the address to your house without selling the house, I?m betting that wouldn?t be allowed or recorded by the registrar. So even in the case you bring up, your transfer of part of the assets in violation of the regulations set by the community (in this case, the government) is not accepted. >> In the alternative formulation, someone sold Mike (as you put it) the "the right to use those >> integers as addresses on the global Internet?? > > Might be what the contract said, might be what you said. Not sure. > > But certainly someone could, if they had a unique address assignment, sell him the right to use those uniquely-assigned integers (and the seller would be losing whatever rights they had sold) Sure, but all the third parties in the world that aren?t party to that transaction remain free to do whatever they like in terms of putting numbers on the equipment that they own and operate on their own networks. If those networks happen to be part of whatever concept you think is defined by the words ?the global internet?, then either they are somehow violating your right and you have a cause of action (which I doubt exists if they don?t interfere with your use of the addresses outside of their network to such an extent that it rises to tortious interference), or there is no such right in the first place. >> It is not at all clear how someone ever >> obtained that right so that it could be sold, or even how that right is enforceable since ?the >> global Internet? would imply the entities that operate the global routing table. > > Maybe that would be poor wording. But Mike could still keep the seller from asserting whatever rights they had sold to Mike. Let?s talk about what Mike could keep others from doing because that?s the essence of any sort of ?exclusive right to use?. In this case, I find it hard to believe that the seller had ?an exclusive right to use? in the first place, so arguing about the nature of that right after the transfer ignores the core question of whether said right existed in order to be transferred. >> Do you believe that ARIN issues " "the right to use those integers as addresses on the global >> Internet? with our IPv4 and IPv6 blocks that we assign out today? > > No. I believe that ARIN provides some assurance of uniqueness and a convenient centralized place for registration records. But that assurance of uniqueness is limited to the scope of the cooperating RIR system and those external agencies which choose to cooperate with said RIR system. Organizations which choose not to cooperate are free to do as they wish. This has already happened to some extent in DNS with the alternate root businesses. Mostly, they are harmlessly ignored by the majority of the internet. I remember one of them serving as a level of comedic relief at one of the AfriNIC meetings I attended. >> I know that legally we have no way of stating we are giving someone ?the right to use those >> integers as addresses on the global Internet? - at best, we can say that we provide them >> exclusive association and use in the Internet numbers registry system, including the right >> to transfer in accordance with policy. > > The right to "transfer the registration in your database" in accordance with policy. They have lots of other rights, and many are exercising them. Like the right to let someone else temporarily use them. And, I would argue (perhaps especially for addresses not encumbered by the RSA or LRSA) the right to actually "transfer" the rights to use them to another party *whether or not* ARIN policy is followed. It?s not clear that these rights exist or need to exist. The right to use integers is, IMHO, a natural right. What is at issue here is the right to exclude others from using them in some particular way in some particular context. You are arguing that such a right somehow exists and is somehow related to the contents of the RIR database, but you have yet to make it clear how or why such a right exists or where it originates. Absent the ability to exclude others from using integers, then transfers not recorded in the registry seem to lack substance in that everyone already has the right to use those numbers and really all that is being transferred is an agreement not to interfere with the second parties use of numbers registered to the first party. >> (Mind you, we could actually say ?the exclusive right to use in the global Internet routing table >> as maintained by ARIN?s registry users? but doing that would require that ARIN?s registry users >> be obligated to only route blocks on behalf of the parties listed in the registry? does anyone >> really want this obligation with the Internet numbers registry system? > > One could argue that the backers of the RPKI want exactly this. The legal challenges should be interesting. Nothing in RPKI establishes the RIRs or ICANN as the only possible trust anchor and the choice of anchors which you trust on your network is entirely up to you. > In this country, people can assert rights and sue pretty much whenever they want, and have those enforced (or not) in court. Whether or not laws are passed or more policies are created. Sure, but absent anything on which to base such a claim, the courts will usually dismiss the case with prejudice. So, I ask again, what is your basis for such a claim of a right to ?exclusive use? on ?the global internet?. Owen From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 08:16:25 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:16:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region Message-ID: Folks - We?ve had a wonderful time reviewing how we got to the present state, but as Mr. Huberman pointed out, we?re now approaching runout of the IPv4 free pool for the ARIN region, and with this will obviously come an increased need by some parties for IPv4 transfers. The ability of this community to set policy applicable to IPv4 transfers should be taken as basic assumption (and we will certainly keep the community apprised if there should ever be a change in this ability.) With that in mind, I?d like to challenge the community to consider and clearly state the underlying purpose for having constraints on IPv4 transfers, and how such policy meets ARIN?s mission or policy development goals . While it is true that our default position on registry policy is that we preserve the status quo until a change is shown to be needed, the unique one-time event of the runout of the IPv4 free pool warrants a fresh statement and review of the purposes that we aim to fulfill via the IPv4 transfer policy. Our current needs-based IPv4 transfer policy is basically derived from the IPv4 allocation policy, and the assumption that the registry should determine those parties who should be issued IPv4 address space. This is very reasonable assumption when the resources are coming from the IPv4 regional free pool, but it is unclear what purpose is fulfilled in making the same determination when the resources are coming from another party. If the community can agree on a common statement of the purpose for the IPv4 transfer policy (which will take active engagement towards trying to understand everyone?s concerns), then it might be possible to lay groundwork for simpler transfer policy for which everyone understands the underlying basis, and thus has an much easier time supporting. So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4 transfer policy, and why? I will get things going with a potential less-contentious example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is necessary to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size. While the ISP community _may_ be capable of dealing with a flood of /30?s suddenly appearing and seeking routing, it is quite unclear if there is any benefit in creating that potential condition, and there is certainly risk to the Internet if ISPs succumb to the customer pressure and route such in large quantity. Can we start with a deliberate reasoned discussion on this one aspect of the IPv4 transfer policy, and if common ground is found, move on to any other perceived transfer policy requirements? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 08:52:40 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:52:40 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Curran wrote: > So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4 > transfer policy, and why? Hi John, My knee-jerk response is that there are two distinct needs for the existence of a transfer policy. Need #1: So that organizations may buy and sell portions of their networking business and have the registry accurately reflect the current owner of those business elements. Need #2: So that IP addresses may be quickly and efficiently reassigned from one organization's lower-value applications to another's higher-value applications. Value being in the view of the two respective resource holders, not some wacky top-down definition. > I will get things going with a potential > less-contentious > example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is > necessary > to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size. While > the > ISP community _may_ be capable of dealing with a flood of /30?s suddenly > appearing and seeking routing, it is quite unclear if there is any > benefit in > creating that potential condition, and there is certainly risk to the > Internet if > ISPs succumb to the customer pressure and route such in large quantity. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to start with the underlying need for ARIN to have a transfer policy and drill down later. Minimum block size is a secondary objective we might want addressing policy in general (including a transfer policy) to achieve. It's not specific to transfer policy and doesn't drive the need for transfer policy. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 09:22:42 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 09:22:42 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] on property rights Message-ID: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3757 -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From mcr at sandelman.ca Fri Jun 5 09:50:30 2015 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 09:50:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> My opinion is that once the pool is empty, that ARIN should get out of any IPv4 needs analysis and just leave it to the market. How much time/energy does ARIN staff spend on this? While we get told all the time that only the board can set prices, we do set categories of things that can be "sold" by creating policies. I am concerned about ARIN's long-term viability, given that many entities should get a generous IPv6 allocation and not return for more for years to decades. I'd love to read a white paper with a title like: "ARIN Revenue Model in a primarily v6 Internet" I would be happy to see ARIN raise the recurring price for IPv4 registration and continue to look for ways to lower the cost of IPv6 allocations (particularly end-user allocations). -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 481 bytes Desc: not available URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 5 09:53:11 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:53:11 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> References: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> Message-ID: Hi Remove need based potentially unify a global transfer policy since APNIC and RIPE has already done so. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > My opinion is that once the pool is empty, that ARIN should get out of any > IPv4 needs analysis and just leave it to the market. > > How much time/energy does ARIN staff spend on this? > > While we get told all the time that only the board can set prices, we do > set > categories of things that can be "sold" by creating policies. I am > concerned > about ARIN's long-term viability, given that many entities should get a > generous IPv6 allocation and not return for more for years to decades. > > I'd love to read a white paper with a title like: > "ARIN Revenue Model in a primarily v6 Internet" > > I would be happy to see ARIN raise the recurring price for IPv4 > registration > and continue to look for ways to lower the cost of IPv6 allocations > (particularly end-user allocations). > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh > networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network > architect [ > ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on > rails [ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 11:11:44 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:11:44 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> References: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > ... I am concerned > about ARIN's long-term viability, given that many entities should get a > generous IPv6 allocation and not return for more for years to decades. > > I'd love to read a white paper with a title like: > "ARIN Revenue Model in a primarily v6 Internet" > > I would be happy to see ARIN raise the recurring price for IPv4 registration > and continue to look for ways to lower the cost of IPv6 allocations > (particularly end-user allocations). Michael - Actually, this particular risk factor was addressed several years ago in the revised pricing table - service providers pay based on their size category, and the category is set based on the larger of IPv4 or IPv6 size category. (There is a small risk of ending up a slightly smaller revenue model if the the categories shift down as a result of IPv4 returns, but one would expect that to correspond with a similar reduction in workload for IPv6-only world) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 11:30:56 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:30:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Curran wrote: >> So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4 >> transfer policy, and why? > > Hi John, > > My knee-jerk response is that there are two distinct needs for the > existence of a transfer policy. > > Need #1: So that organizations may buy and sell portions of their > networking business and have the registry accurately reflect the > current owner of those business elements. > > Need #2: So that IP addresses may be quickly and efficiently > reassigned from one organization's lower-value applications to > another's higher-value applications. Bill - Could you clarify the attributes of each of these requirements? Is #1 the need to transfer along with operational network, and #2 the need to move IP addresses to a better economic use, or do I misunderstand your distinction? > Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to start with the > underlying need for ARIN to have a transfer policy and drill down > later. Minimum block size is a secondary objective we might want > addressing policy in general (including a transfer policy) to achieve. > It's not specific to transfer policy and doesn't drive the need for > transfer policy. Alas, I was unclear? I said ?need for transfer policy? when I was truly thinking slightly beyond that into ?requirements for a transfer policy?, which would include any secondary objectives. Obviously, if no IPv4 transfer policy is needed, then there is no requirement with respect to minimum size block - I perhaps jumped the gun and presumed that there would clearly be a need identified for such a policy and that other related requirements of any such policy should be discussed. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com Fri Jun 5 11:32:13 2015 From: SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com (Steven Ryerse) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:32:13 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> References: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> Message-ID: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192F7DB@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> +1 Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office ? 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 Michael Richardson Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 9:51 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region My opinion is that once the pool is empty, that ARIN should get out of any IPv4 needs analysis and just leave it to the market. How much time/energy does ARIN staff spend on this? While we get told all the time that only the board can set prices, we do set categories of things that can be "sold" by creating policies. I am concerned about ARIN's long-term viability, given that many entities should get a generous IPv6 allocation and not return for more for years to decades. I'd love to read a white paper with a title like: "ARIN Revenue Model in a primarily v6 Internet" I would be happy to see ARIN raise the recurring price for IPv4 registration and continue to look for ways to lower the cost of IPv6 allocations (particularly end-user allocations). -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 12:01:09 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:01:09 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > Remove need based potentially unify a global transfer policy since APNIC and > RIPE has already done so. Hi Lu, A globally coordinated policy which also constrained subregistries to facilitate transfers in accordance with the policy might be worthwhile. We'd have to take care not to pretend that ARIN and APNIC work the same way: APNIC cedes much of its registry operation to National Internet Registries, non-operating entities whose role is to be miniature APNICs. ARIN has subregistries in little more than name. ISPs are operating entities which apply the allocated IP addresses to _their_ operations with the full expectation that the customer holds addresses only so long as they purchase the attached network service. Put simply: APNIC NIRs would have to comply with any global transfer policy as well even as ARIN ISPs are understood to be the direct customer instead. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From rjletts at uw.edu Fri Jun 5 12:22:58 2015 From: rjletts at uw.edu (Richard J. Letts) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:22:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer policies. This does not require complete blobal co-ordination, but it will establish areas where co-operating RIRs get access to free markets and uncooperative RIRs do not. If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry else accept the transfer Otherwise you have the situation where limited addresses cannot be transferred across border, leading to an imperfect market which (long-term) affects the rest of the world?s ability to function using IPv4 (which will be significant for a while yet) In the meantime, making it harder to move recently acquired addresses to a different RIR acts as a brake on the ability to arbitrage or move relatively recently acquired addresses to a registry with restrictive market policies. Richard Letts From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Rocky Sent: 4 June 2015 6:24 PM To: bill at herrin.us Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Hi William, Same as the CNNIC, KRNIC, VINNIC, IDNIC and NIXI ( Indian NIR) do not allow to transfer their IPv4 addresses out of their NIRs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at iptrading.com Fri Jun 5 12:39:42 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:39:42 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> Message-ID: <027201d09fae$3920ef50$ab62cdf0$@iptrading.com> Put simply: APNIC NIRs would have to comply with any global transfer policy as well even as ARIN ISPs are understood to be the direct customer instead. Regards, Bill Herrin Hi Bill, What about when the NIR and RIR allow for outgoing transfers but a specific country makes it illegal for their citizens to do this? Do we hold inter-regional transfer policy hostage to any particular country's law? I will note that although RIPE allows transfers, country-based sanctions prevent those transfers to Iranian organizations. These are untested waters. The relationship between RIRs and NIRs insofar as policy compliance is probably a matter of those RIR's individual policies. Or is the NIR concept elucidated in some global document? Is it good enough that at the APNIC level we have reciprocity? I believe that it is not required for Chinese firms to hold all their addresses within CNNIC, rather some can be held directly in APNIC accounts. So what if a Chinese buyer opened an APNIC account and purchased inter-regionally, then transferred from APNIC to CNNIC under their existing policies? Or just left the accounts registered in APNIC? Regards, Mike From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 12:41:31 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:41:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Richard J. Letts wrote: > If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only > allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer > policies. Hi Richard, The plain language of the transfer policies already requires that. It's an enforcement problem: ARIN is permitting transfers anyway. I don't know what we can do about it save wagging fingers at John Curran. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 12:51:26 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:51:26 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: <027201d09fae$3920ef50$ab62cdf0$@iptrading.com> References: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> <027201d09fae$3920ef50$ab62cdf0$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Mike Burns wrote: >> Put simply: APNIC NIRs would have to comply with any global transfer policy >> as well even as ARIN ISPs are understood to be the direct customer instead. > > What about when the NIR and RIR allow for outgoing transfers but a specific > country makes it illegal for their citizens to do this? Hi Mike, I don't see a useful distinction between the two, save that if the registry serves a wider community than the jurisdiction which prevents transfers, the registry might achieve compliance by preventing transfers into the jurisdiction. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 12:52:18 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:52:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> References: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:30 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> Need #1: So that organizations may buy and sell portions of their >> networking business and have the registry accurately reflect the >> current owner of those business elements. >> >> Need #2: So that IP addresses may be quickly and efficiently >> reassigned from one organization's lower-value applications to >> another's higher-value applications. > > Could you clarify the attributes of each of these requirements? > Is #1 the need to transfer along with operational network, and > #2 the need to move IP addresses to a better economic use, > or do I misunderstand your distinction? Hi John, You have it just about right, although I wouldn't use the word "economic." I see "better use" as a private matter between the releasing and acquiring registrants. Whatever they happen to think "better" is something economic, personal or somehow "closer to God." Not something for which we should have or employ an understanding of at the registry level. > Alas, I was unclear? I said ?need for transfer policy? when I was truly > thinking slightly beyond that into ?requirements for a transfer policy?, > which would include any secondary objectives. Obviously, if no IPv4 > transfer policy is needed, then there is no requirement with respect to > minimum size block - I perhaps jumped the gun and presumed that > there would clearly be a need identified for such a policy and that other > related requirements of any such policy should be discussed. Roger. Then I'd also add: Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through second-order activity too. E.g. I would disallow ARIN->APNIC absent a commitment from APNIC to disallow a subsequent APNIC->CNNIC activity due to CNNIC disallowing all out-transfers. Records First. ARIN should publish information about non-compliant transfers that nevertheless happened in real-world terms, even if it has to declare that information to be "invalid" or "unsubstantiated." Potentially incorrect information about the current user is better than no information about the current user. BGP protectionism. The Internet BGP table is somewhat fragile. The problem is exacerbated by a tragedy of the commons problem comprised of the lack of any practical way to exact payment for the routes in the local BGP table from the organization which first announced those routes into the BGP system. To whatever extent practical, transfers should avoid inducing or requiring further fragmentation in the myriad routing tables that comprise that very expensive system. I'm not convinced about having hard policy for minimum transfer sizes. I think that could be better managed as an ARIN business matter by requiring anyone requesting an unusually small transfer to sign a letter to the effect that, "Undersigned registrant acknowledges that address blocks smaller than /24, including the requested block, are ordinarily _not usable_ on the public Internet. Registrant requests transfer despite said impairment." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 12:57:28 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:57:28 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:41 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Richard J. Letts wrote: >> If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only >> allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer >> policies. > > Hi Richard, > > The plain language of the transfer policies already requires that. > It's an enforcement problem: ARIN is permitting transfers anyway. I > don't know what we can do about it save wagging fingers at John > Curran. Bill - The current policy provides for transfers to ?_RIRs_ who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies?? The policies of NIRs, ISPs or LIRs are not a factor of the determination, only the RIR?s policies (which must be reciprocal, compatible, and needs-based.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From rudi.daniel at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 12:58:04 2015 From: rudi.daniel at gmail.com (Rudolph Daniel) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:58:04 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] general question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Relating to rights and property of IP numbers. Does the proposed IANA transition change the landscape or has potential to change the current status? RD On Jun 5, 2015 12:52 PM, wrote: 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: On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region (William Herrin) 2. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (Richard J. Letts) 3. Re: On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region (Mike Burns) 4. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (William Herrin) 5. Re: On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region (William Herrin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:01:09 -0400 From: William Herrin To: Lu Heng Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net List" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > Remove need based potentially unify a global transfer policy since APNIC and > RIPE has already done so. Hi Lu, A globally coordinated policy which also constrained subregistries to facilitate transfers in accordance with the policy might be worthwhile. We'd have to take care not to pretend that ARIN and APNIC work the same way: APNIC cedes much of its registry operation to National Internet Registries, non-operating entities whose role is to be miniature APNICs. ARIN has subregistries in little more than name. ISPs are operating entities which apply the allocated IP addresses to _their_ operations with the full expectation that the customer holds addresses only so long as they purchase the attached network service. Put simply: APNIC NIRs would have to comply with any global transfer policy as well even as ARIN ISPs are understood to be the direct customer instead. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:22:58 +0000 From: "Richard J. Letts" Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Message-ID: < SN1PR08MB18232722966F578320CAF73FC0B20 at SN1PR08MB1823.namprd08.prod.outlook.com > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer policies. This does not require complete blobal co-ordination, but it will establish areas where co-operating RIRs get access to free markets and uncooperative RIRs do not. If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry else accept the transfer Otherwise you have the situation where limited addresses cannot be transferred across border, leading to an imperfect market which (long-term) affects the rest of the world?s ability to function using IPv4 (which will be significant for a while yet) In the meantime, making it harder to move recently acquired addresses to a different RIR acts as a brake on the ability to arbitrage or move relatively recently acquired addresses to a registry with restrictive market policies. Richard Letts From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Rocky Sent: 4 June 2015 6:24 PM To: bill at herrin.us Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Hi William, Same as the CNNIC, KRNIC, VINNIC, IDNIC and NIXI ( Indian NIR) do not allow to transfer their IPv4 addresses out of their NIRs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: < http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150605/caa2b152/attachment-0001.html > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:39:42 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" To: "'William Herrin'" , "'Lu Heng'" Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region Message-ID: <027201d09fae$3920ef50$ab62cdf0$@iptrading.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Put simply: APNIC NIRs would have to comply with any global transfer policy as well even as ARIN ISPs are understood to be the direct customer instead. Regards, Bill Herrin Hi Bill, What about when the NIR and RIR allow for outgoing transfers but a specific country makes it illegal for their citizens to do this? Do we hold inter-regional transfer policy hostage to any particular country's law? I will note that although RIPE allows transfers, country-based sanctions prevent those transfers to Iranian organizations. These are untested waters. The relationship between RIRs and NIRs insofar as policy compliance is probably a matter of those RIR's individual policies. Or is the NIR concept elucidated in some global document? Is it good enough that at the APNIC level we have reciprocity? I believe that it is not required for Chinese firms to hold all their addresses within CNNIC, rather some can be held directly in APNIC accounts. So what if a Chinese buyer opened an APNIC account and purchased inter-regionally, then transferred from APNIC to CNNIC under their existing policies? Or just left the accounts registered in APNIC? Regards, Mike ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:41:31 -0400 From: William Herrin To: "Richard J. Letts" Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Richard J. Letts wrote: > If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only > allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer > policies. Hi Richard, The plain language of the transfer policies already requires that. It's an enforcement problem: ARIN is permitting transfers anyway. I don't know what we can do about it save wagging fingers at John Curran. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:51:26 -0400 From: William Herrin To: Mike Burns Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Mike Burns wrote: >> Put simply: APNIC NIRs would have to comply with any global transfer policy >> as well even as ARIN ISPs are understood to be the direct customer instead. > > What about when the NIR and RIR allow for outgoing transfers but a specific > country makes it illegal for their citizens to do this? Hi Mike, I don't see a useful distinction between the two, save that if the registry serves a wider community than the jurisdiction which prevents transfers, the registry might achieve compliance by preventing transfers into the jurisdiction. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list ARIN-PPML at arin.net http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 46 ****************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 13:06:20 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:06:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> Message-ID: <22409C56-50CB-404F-8728-2ACAC45832A3@arin.net> On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:52 PM, William Herrin wrote: > Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a > registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer > addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through > second-order activity too. E.g. I would disallow ARIN->APNIC absent a > commitment from APNIC to disallow a subsequent APNIC->CNNIC activity > due to CNNIC disallowing all out-transfers. Can you explain what the underlying requirement that is satisfied by having such a criteria in the transfer policy? Given that regions came about out of administrative convenience and efficiency in distribution, it is interesting to see them take on significant meaning in a post-allocation environment... > BGP protectionism. The Internet BGP table is somewhat fragile. The > problem is exacerbated by a tragedy of the commons problem comprised > of the lack of any practical way to exact payment for the routes in > the local BGP table from the organization which first announced those > routes into the BGP system. To whatever extent practical, transfers > should avoid inducing or requiring further fragmentation in the myriad > routing tables that comprise that very expensive system. > > I'm not convinced about having hard policy for minimum transfer sizes. > I think that could be better managed as an ARIN business matter by > requiring anyone requesting an unusually small transfer to sign a > letter to the effect that, "Undersigned registrant acknowledges that > address blocks smaller than /24, including the requested block, are > ordinarily _not usable_ on the public Internet. Registrant requests > transfer despite said impairment.? Is /25 "unusually small?? If smaller than /24 are allowed at all, they may become rather popular in the near future (i.e. at the point in time when ISPs will no longer provide static addresses to new business customers) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 5 13:04:23 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 18:04:23 +0100 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: <18983.1433512230@sandelman.ca> Message-ID: <41FFE073-D8C5-40BD-BB66-2052C5DCEB21@delong.com> This is false (both have restored needs basis to their transfer policies). Owen > On Jun 5, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > > Hi > > Remove need based potentially unify a global transfer policy since APNIC and RIPE has already done so. > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > My opinion is that once the pool is empty, that ARIN should get out of any > IPv4 needs analysis and just leave it to the market. > > How much time/energy does ARIN staff spend on this? > > While we get told all the time that only the board can set prices, we do set > categories of things that can be "sold" by creating policies. I am concerned > about ARIN's long-term viability, given that many entities should get a > generous IPv6 allocation and not return for more for years to decades. > > I'd love to read a white paper with a title like: > "ARIN Revenue Model in a primarily v6 Internet" > > I would be happy to see ARIN raise the recurring price for IPv4 registration > and continue to look for ways to lower the cost of IPv6 allocations > (particularly end-user allocations). > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ > ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > _______________________________________________ > 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 5 13:10:19 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:10:19 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:57 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:41 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Richard J. Letts wrote: >>> If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only >>> allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer >>> policies. >> >> The plain language of the transfer policies already requires that. > >> It's an enforcement problem: ARIN is permitting transfers anyway. I >> don't know what we can do about it save wagging fingers at John >> Curran. > The current policy provides for transfers to ?_RIRs_ who agree to the transfer and share > reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies?? The policies of NIRs, ISPs or LIRs are > not a factor of the determination, only the RIR?s policies (which must be reciprocal, > compatible, and needs-based.) John, How you can consider APNIC's policies to be reciprocal and compatible when they operate via noncomplaint NIRs escapes me. What words do you need to do the job we asked of you? If you'll tell me what words you would need to actually enforce this policy, I'll be happy to advance them in a proposal. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 13:12:52 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:12:52 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] general question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote: > ... > Does the proposed IANA transition change the landscape or has potential to change the current status? Excellent question (although it would be good to get back to policy development on the PPML list at some point?) To the extent that one views the Internet Numbers Registry as a collaborative coordination activity, whereby participants work together to create and maintain uniqueness and voluntarily participate in the registry because of the value that it brings in being able to more readily interconnect with others on the Internet, none of that changes in an environment absent the NTIA IANA Functions contract. Those with other more colorful perspectives on the nature of IP address blocks and the numbers registry system would have to speak regarding impacts to their particular worldview. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 13:18:40 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:18:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:10 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > How you can consider APNIC's policies to be reciprocal and compatible > when they operate via noncomplaint NIRs escapes me. What words do you > need to do the job we asked of you? If you'll tell me what words you > would need to actually enforce this policy, I'll be happy to advance > them in a proposal. If you wish us to assess NIR or LIR policies in order to determine Inter-RIR transfer policy compatibility,then put that direction clearly in policy text. Thanks, /John From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 13:25:00 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:25:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: <22409C56-50CB-404F-8728-2ACAC45832A3@arin.net> References: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> <22409C56-50CB-404F-8728-2ACAC45832A3@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:06 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:52 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a >> registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer >> addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through >> second-order activity too. E.g. I would disallow ARIN->APNIC absent a >> commitment from APNIC to disallow a subsequent APNIC->CNNIC activity >> due to CNNIC disallowing all out-transfers. > > Can you explain what the underlying requirement that is satisfied by having > such a criteria in the transfer policy? Fairness. Free trade is and must be a two-way street. Don't have that if we let someone pay lip service to free trade and then act as a proxy for a third party who's gaming the system. >> I'm not convinced about having hard policy for minimum transfer sizes. >> I think that could be better managed as an ARIN business matter by >> requiring anyone requesting an unusually small transfer to sign a >> letter to the effect that, "Undersigned registrant acknowledges that >> address blocks smaller than /24, including the requested block, are >> ordinarily _not usable_ on the public Internet. Registrant requests >> transfer despite said impairment.? > > Is /25 "unusually small?? The nice thing about my way is that ARIN need never make that call. It need only warn registrants and then let them make the call. The only rough spot is that *if* we continue some form of needs analysis we'd have to deliberately cut it off at the /24 level so that you can't transfer anything smaller than a /24 unless you qualify for the /24. Personally, with the free pool gone I'm disinclined to continue needs-based analysis, at least on the relatively small transfers like /22 or /24. But you asked which things we wanted to put on the table as candidate requirements for transfers, not the ones we wanted to argue against. I'm trying to respect that. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 13:36:44 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:36:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:18 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:10 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> >> How you can consider APNIC's policies to be reciprocal and compatible >> when they operate via noncomplaint NIRs escapes me. What words do you >> need to do the job we asked of you? If you'll tell me what words you >> would need to actually enforce this policy, I'll be happy to advance >> them in a proposal. > > If you wish us to assess NIR or LIR policies in order to determine Inter-RIR > transfer policy compatibility,then put that direction clearly in policy text. So you can tell us the draft exceeds policy and impinges on ARIN business procedure? You've suckered folks into that game one too many times. Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else suffer the continued wagging of my finger. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 13:40:30 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:40:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> <22409C56-50CB-404F-8728-2ACAC45832A3@arin.net> Message-ID: <17243067-BCAC-41C1-A09D-D3A658DCA628@arin.net> On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: > ... > Fairness. Free trade is and must be a two-way street. Don't have that > if we let someone pay lip service to free trade and then act as a > proxy for a third party who's gaming the system. Bill - Could you elaborate? A party X in ARIN region wishes to transfer to party Y in region ?R?. You wish to predicate ARIN?s ability to process such a transfer on whether or not other parties in region ?R? are allowed to transfer to folks in the ARIN region? How is this fair to ?X? or ?Y?, who simply are trying to get resources to where they are needed? >> Is /25 "unusually small?? > > The nice thing about my way is that ARIN need never make that call. It > need only warn registrants and then let them make the call. Registrants will make that call, but ISP?s have often looked to the RIRs to take the lead in determining what block size makes sense, and then made their routing decisions accordingly. In allowing smaller block sizes, isn?t that an implicit endorsement that ISPs should consider routing such? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 14:04:40 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 18:04:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: > So you can tell us the draft exceeds policy and impinges on ARIN > business procedure? You've suckered folks into that game one too many > times. Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer > reciprocity and compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance > those words. Bill - As always, I?m happy to aid you in policy development if you need assistance. With respect to NIR policy compatibility, is your your expectation that it has to allow outward transfers unconditionally, or simply allow the potential for outward transfers subject to any other conditions, e.g. payment of processing fee, signing of an agreement, etc? Do your require and/or allow enforcement of the condition that the source address holder must not have received a block within a certain time frame (if contained within NIR policy) Does the time period have to match those in the ARIN policy presently and/or stay in alignment with ARIN?s at all times? Post-transfer, dd you require the NIR to make any source entity ineligible to receive future sources via allocation and/transfer for some period? Does the period have to match ARIN?s present and/or ARIN?s future ineligibility period? > Else suffer the continued wagging of my finger. If you answer the questions above, I can craft text that should require NIR transfer reciprocity and compatibility to the level that you desire. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From mike at iptrading.com Fri Jun 5 14:05:27 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:05:27 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> Message-ID: <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else suffer the continued wagging of my finger. Regards, Bill Herrin Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's president. I support continued finger-wagging. Regards, Mike -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: _______________________________________________ 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 5 14:29:10 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:29:10 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: <17243067-BCAC-41C1-A09D-D3A658DCA628@arin.net> References: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> <22409C56-50CB-404F-8728-2ACAC45832A3@arin.net> <17243067-BCAC-41C1-A09D-D3A658DCA628@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:40 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> Fairness. Free trade is and must be a two-way street. Don't have that >> if we let someone pay lip service to free trade and then act as a >> proxy for a third party who's gaming the system. > > Bill - > > Could you elaborate? A party X in ARIN region wishes to transfer to > party Y in region ?R?. You wish to predicate ARIN?s ability to process > such a transfer on whether or not other parties in region ?R? are allowed > to transfer to folks in the ARIN region? Hi John, Plus recursion. I don't want to see Y in R acting as a proxy for Z in S in order to evade S's noncompliance. If we're going to permit ARIN region resources to be played on a global field, we've a right to at least insist it be a level field. > How is this fair to ?X? or ?Y?, > who simply are trying to get resources to where they are needed? Party X has no shortage of other candidate buyers while party Y can petition his registry to join the "free trade pact" if he finds fairness as desirable a trait as I do. Meanwhile parties A through W aren't placed at unfair disadvantaged by the behavior of Y's registry. >>> Is /25 "unusually small?? >> >> The nice thing about my way is that ARIN need never make that call. It >> need only warn registrants and then let them make the call. > > Registrants will make that call, but ISP?s have often looked to the RIRs > to take the lead in determining what block size makes sense, and then > made their routing decisions accordingly. I'm not sure that's how I'd characterize the _failed_ experiment at having ISPs set route filters based on the RIRs' specified minimum assignment size in a /8. The only filter size that stuck came from the number of bits in a class-C netmask, something the registries had nothing to do with. > In allowing smaller block sizes, > isn?t that an implicit endorsement that ISPs should consider routing such? I'm not sold on that argument but I don't dispute it either. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jschiller at google.com Fri Jun 5 15:30:24 2015 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:30:24 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: Mike, If you object, I'm sure an AC member can be found to craft some text, and get staff and legal assessment. FWIW, if you like this restriction, I think the rjletts approach catches it all: If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry else accept the transfer WRT this restriction and compatible needs-based policies, you may want to do the same... If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that either 1. does not have a compatible needs based policy OR 2. does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry else accept the transfer FWIW, its not just NIRs, I believe you could transfer IPs from ARIN to APNIC, and then from APNIC to RIPE. __Jason On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and > compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else > suffer the continued wagging of my finger. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's > president. I support continued finger-wagging. > Regards, > Mike > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, > Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at iptrading.com Fri Jun 5 15:36:15 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:36:15 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> Hi Jason, I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the community under another person?s name. It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought. Regards, Mike From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschiller at google.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:30 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: William Herrin; John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Mike, If you object, I'm sure an AC member can be found to craft some text, and get staff and legal assessment. FWIW, if you like this restriction, I think the rjletts approach catches it all: If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry else accept the transfer WRT this restriction and compatible needs-based policies, you may want to do the same... If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that either 1. does not have a compatible needs based policy OR 2. does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry else accept the transfer FWIW, its not just NIRs, I believe you could transfer IPs from ARIN to APNIC, and then from APNIC to RIPE. __Jason On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike Burns > wrote: Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else suffer the continued wagging of my finger. Regards, Bill Herrin Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's president. I support continued finger-wagging. Regards, Mike -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: _______________________________________________ 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. -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com |571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 15:39:38 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:39:38 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:04 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> So you can tell us the draft exceeds policy and impinges on ARIN >> business procedure? You've suckered folks into that game one too many >> times. Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer >> reciprocity and compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance >> those words. > > Bill - > > As always, I?m happy to aid you in policy development if you need > assistance. With respect to NIR policy compatibility, is your your > expectation that it has to allow outward transfers unconditionally, > or simply allow the potential for outward transfers subject to any > other conditions, e.g. payment of processing fee, signing of an > agreement, etc? Hi John, Call it the transfer GPL: I ask that the receipient registry's outbound transfer policy be little more onerous than our own, but at the same time sufficiently diligent as to prevent addresses from eventually landing at a registry which either directly prevents outbound transfers or engages such onerous practices as effectively prevent outbound transfers. That line has a gray zone to it, to be sure, but practices like making out-transfers illegal are rather obviously to one side of the line while charging a nominal processing fee is rather obviously on the other. > Do your require and/or allow enforcement of the > condition that the source address holder must not have received a > block within a certain time frame (if contained within NIR policy) The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should comply with the rules of every registry in the sequence, not just the two registries involved in that particular step. If ARIN requires that the receiving registry also permit global out-transfers then no registry in the sequence may operate under contrary restraints. The cooldown timer resolves this by simply saying: there shall be no sequence of transfers leading outregion. You have to hold and use the addresses long enough that the next transfer is independent. The requirement is that "key" paragraph. The long timer is one mechanism which contributes to meeting the requirement. > Does the time period have to match those in the ARIN policy > presently and/or stay in alignment with ARIN?s at all times? If they employ a cooldown, its details (including length) should render it effective at disrupting sequences which use multiple transfers to evade one or more of the registries' transfer rules. > Post-transfer, dd you require the NIR to make any source entity > ineligible to receive future sources via allocation and/transfer > for some period? Does the period have to match ARIN?s present > and/or ARIN?s future ineligibility period? The post transfer requirements should have the effect of preventing a sequence of transfers from thwarting the requirement that the addresses not be transferred to a registry where out-transfer is not permitted. The whole playing field must be level, not just the part between here and the 30 yard line. I would set hard requirements on -how- they achieve that effect only if there's no other practical way to assure that they -do- achieve that effect. > If you answer the questions above, I can craft text that should > require NIR transfer reciprocity and compatibility to the level > that you desire. Answered, and I stand by to refine and clarify as needed. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 15:45:06 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 19:45:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <55D2D8C6-15C9-487B-B810-80D177BDEEA5@arin.net> On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Mike Burns > wrote: I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the community under another person?s name. It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought. Mike - ARIN staff has always been available (if asked) to aid with crafting of number resource policy proposal language. We generally are not asked, and that?s why it is uncommon. The definition of a Policy Proposal in Policy Development Process notes that staff may be involved in refinement of an idea for a policy - ?Policy Proposal - An idea for a policy that is submitted to the Policy Development Process. Members of the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN staff work with the originator to refine the Policy Proposal so that it contains a clear statement of the existing problem with Internet number resource policy and suggested changes to Internet number resource policy text to address the problem.? (I?ll also admit I?d prefer the AC to take the lead in such matters, but that does sort of presume the active cooperation of the originator to allow such to happen.) Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 5 15:56:02 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:56:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the > community under another person?s name. > > It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought. Hi Mike, I'm of two minds about it myself. On the one hand, ARIN employees aren't supposed to be pushing their own policy. Too much risk of the organization folding in on itself to the exclusion of outside input. On the other hand, we've written a lot of crap policy for lack of a professional to help us convert our ideas into well crafted policy language. Maybe asking for help is how we get policy that does what we meant it to do. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From mike at iptrading.com Fri Jun 5 15:58:20 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 15:58:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <031401d09fc9$f8d2ecc0$ea78c640$@iptrading.com> Hi Mike, I'm of two minds about it myself. On the one hand, ARIN employees aren't supposed to be pushing their own policy. Too much risk of the organization folding in on itself to the exclusion of outside input. On the other hand, we've written a lot of crap policy for lack of a professional to help us convert our ideas into well crafted policy language. Maybe asking for help is how we get policy that does what we meant it to do. Regards, Bill Herrin Meh. You said you would ratify and revise, which is good enough for me. Regards, Mike From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 16:38:19 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:38:19 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> Message-ID: <9DA38DBB-F426-41D3-A941-C1C7D8B23BC0@arin.net> On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 PM, William Herrin > wrote: ... Call it the transfer GPL: I ask that the receipient registry's outbound transfer policy be little more onerous than our own, but at the same time sufficiently diligent as to prevent addresses from eventually landing at a registry which either directly prevents outbound transfers or engages such onerous practices as effectively prevent outbound transfers. A transfer GPL is relatively straightforward; i.e. a set of common requirements that a transfer policy must meet to be deemed compliant. The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should comply with the rules of every registry in the sequence, not just the two registries involved in that particular step. I have read the above sentence several times, and do hope that you do not intend its plain meaning. I would hope instead you mean - ?The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should be approved by registries whose transfer policy meets the transfer common requirements.? The cooldown timer resolves this by simply saying: there shall be no sequence of transfers leading outregion. You have to hold and use the addresses long enough that the next transfer is independent. The requirement is that "key" paragraph. The long timer is one mechanism which contributes to meeting the requirement. So is safe to presume that you wish a long hold timer for the common transfer requirements? I would set hard requirements on -how- they achieve that effect only if there's no other practical way to assure that they -do- achieve that effect. To allow each registry its own approach to the problem than requires that each registry review the approach used by the other and decide if they will accept it, and then communicate that to the others. This is an (n)! situation and does not appear practice (as opposed to simply establishing a clear reference approach which can be readily and independently confirmed. Thoughts? Answered, and I stand by to refine and clarify as needed. One would hope so, as you may be headed into a policy proposal of remarkable complexity... /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jun 5 16:56:34 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:56:34 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55720D02.9050102@matthew.at> On 6/5/2015 5:16 AM, John Curran wrote: > > Our current needs-based IPv4 transfer policy is basically derived > from the IPv4 > allocation policy, and the assumption that the registry should > determine those > parties who should be issued IPv4 address space. This is very > reasonable > assumption when the resources are coming from the IPv4 regional > free pool, > but it is unclear what purpose is fulfilled in making the same > determination > when the resources are coming from another party. > It *does* make sense to do a similar needs test of transfers as long as there is also a free pool, specifically to discourage folks from transferring addresses away and backfilling them from the free pool. Interestingly, now that we've made transfer have a different horizon than allocation, we do see organizations choosing to go that route *even though* addresses are available from the free pool. > If the community can agree on a common statement of the purpose for > the IPv4 > transfer policy (which will take active engagement towards trying > to understand > everyone?s concerns), then it might be possible to lay groundwork > for simpler > transfer policy for which everyone understands the underlying > basis, and thus > has an much easier time supporting. > Agreed. Would be nice to know why there is a transfer policy, and why it might have limitations. > So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an > IPv4 transfer > policy, and why? I will get things going with a potential > less-contentious > example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is > necessary > to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size. > While the > ISP community _may_ be capable of dealing with a flood of /30?s > suddenly > appearing and seeking routing, it is quite unclear if there is any > benefit in > creating that potential condition, and there is certainly risk to > the Internet if > ISPs succumb to the customer pressure and route such in large quantity. I don't think that's any of ARIN's business. ARIN can issue blocks of whatever size it wants, and networks can choose (or not) to route them. > > Can we start with a deliberate reasoned discussion on this one > aspect of the > IPv4 transfer policy, and if common ground is found, move on to any > other > perceived transfer policy requirements? I do think that a transfer policy should require that the transferring party be able to show that those addresses are theirs to transfer. And I do think that holding transfers when there's a dispute is probably a good idea. Matthew Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Fri Jun 5 17:01:19 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:01:19 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> Message-ID: <55720E1F.5080302@matthew.at> On 6/5/2015 9:52 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Roger. Then I'd also add: > > Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a > registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer > addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through > second-order activity too. E.g. I would disallow ARIN->APNIC absent a > commitment from APNIC to disallow a subsequent APNIC->CNNIC activity > due to CNNIC disallowing all out-transfers. Why? Why would this be any different than allowing a transfer to XYZ corp who never intends to sell them again ever no matter what happens? > > Records First. ARIN should publish information about non-compliant > transfers that nevertheless happened in real-world terms, even if it > has to declare that information to be "invalid" or "unsubstantiated." > Potentially incorrect information about the current user is better > than no information about the current user. Agree. Matthew Kaufman From hannigan at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 17:15:30 2015 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 14:15:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: <55720E1F.5080302@matthew.at> References: <0B188386-23E1-4367-8F3C-4BA6475CC611@arin.net> <55720E1F.5080302@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/5/2015 9:52 AM, William Herrin wrote: > >> >> Roger. Then I'd also add: >> >> Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a >> registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer >> addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through >> second-order activity too. E.g. I would disallow ARIN->APNIC absent a >> commitment from APNIC to disallow a subsequent APNIC->CNNIC activity >> due to CNNIC disallowing all out-transfers. >> > > Why? > > Why would this be any different than allowing a transfer to XYZ corp who > never intends to sell them again ever no matter what happens? > Agreed, there is substantial benefit in allowing inbound transfers to CNNIC for many including that the addresses are going to be legitimately used. Reciprocity is an issue for APNIC only, not ARIN. Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Jun 5 18:59:57 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:59:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > ... > Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's > president. I support continued finger-wagging. On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Mike Burns wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> I'm of two minds about it myself. On the one hand, ARIN employees aren't supposed to be pushing their own policy. Too much risk of the organization folding in on itself to the exclusion of outside input. >> On the other hand, we've written a lot of crap policy for lack of a professional to help us convert our ideas into well crafted policy language. Maybe asking for help is how we get policy that does what we meant it to do. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin > > Meh. You said you would ratify and revise, which is good enough for me. Mike - Even so, don't hesitate to support "continued finger-wagging? in my direction when you feel appropriate ? it is far superior to folks quietly fuming over issues unsaid... Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Sun Jun 7 11:27:39 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 08:27:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: I don?t see any problem with ARIN staff assisting an author in crafting language that will yield the desired staff interpretation. What do you see as the problem, exactly? (I?ll note that I think your description of what John offered differs from what was actually offered which I believe is more accurately described above). Owen > On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:36 , Mike Burns wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the community under another person?s name. > It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought. > > Regards, > Mike > > > From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschiller at google.com] > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:30 PM > To: Mike Burns > Cc: William Herrin; John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > > Mike, > > If you object, I'm sure an AC member can be found to craft some text, and get staff and legal assessment. > > FWIW, if you like this restriction, I think the rjletts approach catches it all: > > If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then > reject transfer to target registry > If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that does not allow transfers out of their RIR then > reject transfer to target registry > else > accept the transfer > > WRT this restriction and compatible needs-based policies, you may want to do the same... > > If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then > reject transfer to target registry > If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that either > 1. does not have a compatible needs based policy > OR 2. does not allow transfers out of their RIR then > reject transfer to target registry > else > accept the transfer > > FWIW, its not just NIRs, I believe you could transfer IPs from ARIN to APNIC, and then from APNIC to RIPE. > > __Jason > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike Burns > wrote: >> Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and >> compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else >> suffer the continued wagging of my finger. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's >> president. I support continued finger-wagging. >> Regards, >> Mike >> >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, >> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com |571-266-0006 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mike at iptrading.com Sun Jun 7 13:35:32 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 13:35:32 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: Hi Owen, I don't mind staff assistance and differentiate staff from AC members, also. In this case it was a little more than "assistance" out the outset, ("Tell me the words you'd accept").. As it developed it was clear that Mr. Herrin would provide more than that, which I found acceptable. Regards, Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong To: Mike Burns Cc: Jason Schiller ; arin-ppml at arin.net Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 I don?t see any problem with ARIN staff assisting an author in crafting language that will yield the desired staff interpretation. What do you see as the problem, exactly? (I?ll note that I think your description of what John offered differs from what was actually offered which I believe is more accurately described above). Owen On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:36 , Mike Burns wrote: Hi Jason, I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the community under another person?s name. It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought. Regards, Mike From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschiller at google.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:30 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: William Herrin; John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Mike, If you object, I'm sure an AC member can be found to craft some text, and get staff and legal assessment. FWIW, if you like this restriction, I think the rjletts approach catches it all: If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry else accept the transfer WRT this restriction and compatible needs-based policies, you may want to do the same... If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that either 1. does not have a compatible needs based policy OR 2. does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry else accept the transfer FWIW, its not just NIRs, I believe you could transfer IPs from ARIN to APNIC, and then from APNIC to RIPE. __Jason On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote: Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else suffer the continued wagging of my finger. Regards, Bill Herrin Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's president. I support continued finger-wagging. Regards, Mike -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: _______________________________________________ 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. -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Jun 7 17:27:43 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 14:27:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <02b601d09fba$33f4a970$9bddfc50$@iptrading.com> <02fb01d09fc6$e358e820$aa0ab860$@iptrading.com> Message-ID: <520F458E-6968-4B9F-8192-85B89DEC5353@delong.com> I see no problem and do not consider it more than assistance if a community member is able to express a desire that they want policy to achieve and asks staff to craft language that will achieve that result. Clearly staff will not submit the language to the PDP, but to the community member in question. At that point, the community member has all freedom to submit, modify and submit, or ignore the language provided by staff. I have no problem with this. I will have a problem if staff starts telling us what the outcome should be. However, having those who interpret policy provide language in response to a clear mutual understanding of intent seems highly desirable to me, so long as said language cannot be submitted directly by staff. I think there are enough checks and balances further down in the process to prevent staff from having undue influence in this manner. Owen > On Jun 7, 2015, at 10:35 , Mike Burns wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > I don't mind staff assistance and differentiate staff from AC members, also. > > In this case it was a little more than "assistance" out the outset, ("Tell me the words you'd accept").. > > As it developed it was clear that Mr. Herrin would provide more than that, which I found acceptable. > > Regards, > Mike > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Owen DeLong >> To: Mike Burns >> Cc: Jason Schiller ; arin-ppml at arin.net >> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:27 AM >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 >> >> I don?t see any problem with ARIN staff assisting an author in crafting language that will yield the desired staff interpretation. >> >> What do you see as the problem, exactly? (I?ll note that I think your description of what John offered differs from what was actually offered which I believe is more accurately described above). >> >> Owen >> >>> On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:36 , Mike Burns > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jason, >>> >>> I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the community under another person?s name. >>> It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschiller at google.com ] >>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:30 PM >>> To: Mike Burns >>> Cc: William Herrin; John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net >>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 >>> Mike, >>> If you object, I'm sure an AC member can be found to craft some text, and get staff and legal assessment. >>> FWIW, if you like this restriction, I think the rjletts approach catches it all: >>> If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then >>> reject transfer to target registry >>> If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that does not allow transfers out of their RIR then >>> reject transfer to target registry >>> else >>> accept the transfer >>> WRT this restriction and compatible needs-based policies, you may want to do the same... >>> If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then >>> reject transfer to target registry >>> If target registry allows transfers out of their RIR to any other registry that either >>> 1. does not have a compatible needs based policy >>> OR 2. does not allow transfers out of their RIR then >>> reject transfer to target registry >>> else >>> accept the transfer >>> >>> FWIW, its not just NIRs, I believe you could transfer IPs from ARIN to APNIC, and then from APNIC to RIPE. >>> __Jason >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike Burns > wrote: >>>> Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and >>>> compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else >>>> suffer the continued wagging of my finger. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bill Herrin >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's >>>> president. I support continued finger-wagging. >>>> Regards, >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, >>>> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> _______________________________________________________ >>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com |571-266-0006 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 callumstuart79 at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 22:20:02 2015 From: callumstuart79 at gmail.com (Callum Stuart) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:20:02 +0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region Message-ID: Hi Owen, APNIC re-implemented need assessments after Nov, 2011. The only period without needs assessment in APNIC service region is from 15th April 2011 to the end of Nov, 2011. It does not matter whether the needs assessment for transfer is needed or not after ARIN runs out or other RIRs runs out. The problem is that some RIRs have not taken enough responsibility to stop the Fraud, as far as the community awares, there have several speculators who have reaped plenty of CASHES for selling IPv4 from Free Pools. According to the following comments from RIPE list, Mr. Lu is one of them. I have noticed some comments about Mr. Lu Heng from the RIPE policy discussion list and would like to share with ARIN community. So as to keep low profile to have Lu Heng?s IPs sold. He had created another shell named Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology Co., Ltd registered in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China ( its Chinese name is:?????????????). And then have his IPs sold under this new shell without attracting too much attentions from the RIPE community. He has earned more than 4millions USD for selling his IPs. By the way, cos of this business structure, he can avoid heaps of taxes which should be paid to Netherland Gov and Overseas Gov. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen ( this is where Lu heng graduated) 31.201.0.0/16 2011-04-28 PA SOLD AS35916 (US? 37.222.0.0/15 PA SOLD AS16276 ?ovh, France? ;AS35916 46.136.0.0/16 PA SOLD AS8312?kpn Netherland?;AS35916 5.132.0.0/16 2012-07-12 PA ( Split for sales? /17 left for future sale AS35916 5.224.0.0/15 2012-09-06 SOLD AS35916 178.236.224.0/20 PA Still available for Sale AS16276 Lu Heng still has /17 +/20 left available for Sale in RIPE and one aggregated Afrinic 154.80.0.0/12 ( Currently in Rental business). The Business structure of OutsideHeaven: The main Body of OutsideHeaven was registered in Tax heaven place ( Netherland). Then come the lower Body OutsideHeaven Hangzhou ( registered in Zhejiang Province of China) and the other lower Body Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology ( registered in Hubei Province of China). Under this kind of structure, the company of Lu Heng has avoided to pay the taxes he should pay to the Chinese Government. His main Body registration info: His shell company?s registration info written in holland language. However, you can use google translate to understand. Please note this company does not pay any tax in Holland and in China. Online inzage uittreksel KvK-nummer 01133738 Deze inschrijving valt onder beheer van Kamer van Koophandel Noord-Nederland Onderneming Handelsnamen OutsideHeaven AnytimeChinese Voor Altijd Rechtsvorm Eenmanszaak Startdatum onderneming 26-06-2008 Activiteiten SBI-code: 620102 - Ontwikkelen en produceren van maatwerksoftware SBI-code: 6203 - Beheer van computerfaciliteiten Werkzame personen 0 Vestiging Vestigingsnummer 000005125421 Handelsnamen OutsideHeaven AnytimeChinese Voor Altijd Bezoekadres Esdoornlaan 656, 9741MH Groningen Telefoonnummer 0641734323 Internetadressen www.anytimechinese.com (http://www.anytimechinese.com/) www.anytimechinese.net (http://www.anytimechinese.net/) E-mailadres info at anytimechinese.com (mailto:info at anytimechinese.com) Datum vestiging 26-06-2008 Activiteiten SBI-code: 620102 - Ontwikkelen en produceren van maatwerksoftware SBI-code: 6203 - Beheer van computerfaciliteiten Webdesign. Het exploiteren van een informatieve website. Het geven van informatie over China aan ondernemers. De export van online gamecards. Het beheren van computernetwerken. ICT dienstverlening. Beheren van ICT infrastructuur. Werkzame personen 0 Eigenaar Naam Lu, Heng Geboortedatum en -plaats 01-09-1988, Onbekend, China Adres Esdoornlaan 656, 9741MH Groningen Datum in functie 26-06-2008 One of His Chinese Dummy Corporation named ????????????? in Chinese?English name: outside heaven If you look at its websites, there is no update since 2013 http://www.outsideheaven.com/zh-cn/news You can search the company registration info via link http://122.224.75.235:7082/wsdjpt/ The other of his Chinese Dummy Corporation named Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology Co., Ltd registered in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China ( its Chinese name is:?????????????) You can search the company registration info via link http://gssoso.whhd.gov.cn/dhb/index.html Ironically, a Clever Chinese guy without ?Euro blood? can be "smart Enough" to have as many RIPE IPs as he can. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 8 06:14:29 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:14:29 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Public Policy Mailing List AUP (was: Re: On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Callum Stuart > wrote: ... According to the following comments from RIPE list, Mr. Lu is one of them. I have noticed some comments about Mr. Lu Heng from the RIPE policy discussion list and would like to share with ARIN community. PPML participants - It is sufficient to generically describe concerns in number resource management when proposing (or commenting on) policy proposals; further, I must ask that everyone avoid making character attacks on other members of the community via the PPML mailing list. The ARIN PPML mailing list is operated under the ARIN Mailing List Appropriate Use Policy (ARIN AUP) ; and it is worth the time for all participants to review it when they have a moment. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN p.s. Anyone with knowledge of fraudulent number resource requests being made to ARIN should report it via the fraud reporting system - Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Jun 8 06:24:38 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:24:38 +0200 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Callum: Proven your claim otherwise you will get sued, posting personal information as well as company information in which in public space without back up evidence is illegal cross every continent. It was posted by you in the RIPE list same flaunt information there as well, each claim in your mail is totally untrue and I believe it has no relevance to policy discussion in which suppose to be happening here. More over, I believe you are very aware of your unlawful activity there is the reason for you to choice to use an redeem gmail account to hide your identity. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at linost.com Mon Jun 8 06:33:09 2015 From: chris at linost.com (Chris Wu) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 18:33:09 +0800 Subject: [arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Callum, It's ARIN here, not RIPE. You should go to RIPE. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi Callum: > > Proven your claim otherwise you will get sued, posting personal information > as well as company information in which in public space without back up > evidence is illegal cross every continent. > > It was posted by you in the RIPE list same flaunt information there as well, > each claim in your mail is totally untrue and I believe it has no relevance > to policy discussion in which suppose to be happening here. > > More over, I believe you are very aware of your unlawful activity there is > the reason for you to choice to use an redeem gmail account to hide your > identity. > >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Best Regards, Chris Wu @ Linost.com L.L.C. From bill at herrin.us Mon Jun 8 13:55:02 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 13:55:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <9DA38DBB-F426-41D3-A941-C1C7D8B23BC0@arin.net> References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <9DA38DBB-F426-41D3-A941-C1C7D8B23BC0@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should comply with >> the rules of every registry in the sequence, not just the two >> registries involved in that particular step. > > I have read the above sentence several times, and do hope that you > do not intend its plain meaning. I would hope instead you mean - > ?The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should be approved by > registries whose transfer policy meets the transfer common requirements.? Hi John, Without a globally coordinated policy there are no transfer common requirements, just the combination of the requirements applied by each registry independently. I'm asking that the combined requirements of all registries in the sequence (combined, not common) be met at each step of the transfer sequence. In particular, the transfer should fail if the combined policies are self-contradictory. An example: a transfer which involves both ARIN and CNNIC somewhere in the sequence should fail because ARIN requires transfer reciprocity while CNNIC refuses out-transfers altogether. Introducing additional transfer steps in the middle of the sequence should not make such a transfer possible. >> The cooldown timer resolves this by simply saying: there shall be no >> sequence of transfers leading outregion. You have to hold and use the >> addresses long enough that the next transfer is independent. > > So is safe to presume that you wish a long hold timer for the common > transfer requirements? Call it a long hold timer before the sequence is considered complete and a new transfer can start without considering the whole chain of registry policies. > To allow each registry its own approach to the problem than requires > that each registry review the approach used by the other and decide > if they will accept it, and then communicate that to the others. This is > an (n)! situation That sounds about right. With more than 3 or 4 registries in the sequence a transfer would be hopelessly complex, hence blocked. > and does not appear practice (as opposed to simply > establishing a clear reference approach which can be readily and > independently confirmed. Thoughts? Clear reference approach = globally coordinated policy, yes? Even if successful, that'd leave the problems with section 8.4 in limbo for an awfully long time, would it not? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 8 17:09:01 2015 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 21:09:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 In-Reply-To: References: <043275A1-3B1F-4849-A368-9031E2506092@arin.net> <9DA38DBB-F426-41D3-A941-C1C7D8B23BC0@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2015, at 1:55 PM, William Herrin wrote: > Without a globally coordinated policy there are no transfer common > requirements, just the combination of the requirements applied by each > registry independently. In addition, absent global coordination, the entire mechanism is dependent upon ARIN; i.e. you can?t create a dependency on how another RIR will handle the resources subsequently, instead you have to presume that unless a given requirement is provided by the applicable policy for all \ possible future transfers, the requirement is not met. For example - with globally coordinated policy, you can have something such as ?resources recently transferred from another RIR must not be transferred to another registry not supporting this policy.? Absent any global coordination, ARIN must assess whether the submitted request will allow resources to be transferred in any manner to a situation where the specified requirements will not be met. > I'm asking that the combined requirements of > all registries in the sequence (combined, not common) be met at each > step of the transfer sequence. In particular, the transfer should fail > if the combined policies are self-contradictory. One does not know the future transfers that might be submitted for a number resource block once out of the region, so that means applying the combined requirements for all registries before approved a transfer to another region. It also requires that ARIN interpret other registries policy text in order to assess compatibility, not just with ARIN?s policies, but with any other registry that could end up with the address block. > An example: a transfer which involves both ARIN and CNNIC somewhere in > the sequence should fail because ARIN requires transfer reciprocity > while CNNIC refuses out-transfers altogether. Introducing additional > transfer steps in the middle of the sequence should not make such a > transfer possible. Impossible to know if it involves ARIN and CNNIC up front, as It may just be a request which is ARIN to APNIC for now, and CNNIC later. Do we disallow all transfers to APNIC on the presumption that any of the address blocks might then be transferred to CNNIC? >>> The cooldown timer resolves this by simply saying: there shall be no >>> sequence of transfers leading outregion. You have to hold and use the >>> addresses long enough that the next transfer is independent. >> >> So is safe to presume that you wish a long hold timer for the common >> transfer requirements? > > Call it a long hold timer before the sequence is considered complete > and a new transfer can start without considering the whole chain of > registry policies. How long for a timer? >> To allow each registry its own approach to the problem than requires >> that each registry review the approach used by the other and decide >> if they will accept it, and then communicate that to the others. This is >> an (n)! situation > > That sounds about right. With more than 3 or 4 registries in the > sequence a transfer would be hopelessly complex, hence blocked. Are you referring to a request to transfer sequentially through 3 registries, or the potential that a transferred block would subsequently be transferred at a later time via a policy not compatible with earlier registries and hence must be rejected now (unless we know the receiving registry only transfers to registries with compatible policies, now and in the future. >> and does not appear practice (as opposed to simply >> establishing a clear reference approach which can be readily and >> independently confirmed. Thoughts? > > Clear reference approach = globally coordinated policy, yes? > > Even if successful, that'd leave the problems with section 8.4 in > limbo for an awfully long time, would it not? It would take time, but would also provide a very clear outcome. A non- coordinated approach might ?fixing 8.4? by breaking it until/if the stars align up at some future time. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From andrew.dul at quark.net Wed Jun 10 11:31:45 2015 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:31:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E40F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <015901d09ed4$e0494d20$a0dbe760$@iptrading.com> <256B1FF7-FEDF-4B82-960A-F28C0659A635@corp.arin.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192D614@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <33B70CC7-C985-4DE3-9042-C380191EB7FB@pch.net> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192DFF0@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E272@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD12018192E40F@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <55785861.7060803@quark.net> On 6/4/2015 1:50 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: > > I do understand their concerns and obviously I disagree with needs > testing. What is really needed is size testing to match the size of > the block allocations to the size of the organization, as I?ve > mentioned many times before. Needs testing, with IPv4 run out pretty > much here, is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. > Steven, Could you describe how your idea of "size testing" is different than needs testing? Thanks, Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 12 00:53:03 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:53:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201506120453.t5C4r32C011286@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 51 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 12 00:53:02 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 27.45% | 14 | 22.32% | 138266 | jcurran at arin.net 25.49% | 13 | 14.98% | 92816 | bill at herrin.us 7.84% | 4 | 18.34% | 113614 | owen at delong.com 9.80% | 5 | 11.75% | 72767 | mike at iptrading.com 1.96% | 1 | 5.84% | 36160 | callumstuart79 at gmail.com 3.92% | 2 | 3.07% | 19029 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com 3.92% | 2 | 2.96% | 18357 | matthew at matthew.at 1.96% | 1 | 4.53% | 28090 | rudi.daniel at gmail.com 1.96% | 1 | 3.18% | 19676 | rjletts at uw.edu 1.96% | 1 | 2.73% | 16882 | jschiller at google.com 1.96% | 1 | 2.64% | 16375 | seth.p.johnson at gmail.com 1.96% | 1 | 1.71% | 10572 | andrew.dul at quark.net 1.96% | 1 | 1.39% | 8634 | hannigan at gmail.com 1.96% | 1 | 1.25% | 7719 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.96% | 1 | 1.14% | 7088 | mcr at sandelman.ca 1.96% | 1 | 1.10% | 6822 | chris at linost.com 1.96% | 1 | 1.07% | 6606 | sryerse at eclipse-networks.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 51 |100.00% | 619473 | Total From narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 19 00:53:02 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 00:53:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201506190453.t5J4r2kZ003892@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 19 00:53:02 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7340 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7340 | Total From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 19 14:11:16 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:11:16 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net In-Reply-To: <201506190453.t5J4r2kZ003892@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <201506190453.t5J4r2kZ003892@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: s/narten at us.ibm.com /crickets/ Owen > On Jun 18, 2015, at 21:53 , Thomas Narten wrote: > > Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Jun 19 00:53:02 EDT 2015 > > Messages | Bytes | Who > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7340 | narten at us.ibm.com > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7340 | Total > > _______________________________________________ > 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 athompso at athompso.net Tue Jun 23 11:34:58 2015 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:34:58 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question Message-ID: This is probably not the right place to ask, but I'm unsure where to best ask. And at least it's somewhat relevant given recent talk of large actors in the CNNIC area gaming ARIN... 1) when someone submits a fraud report to ARIN, how are they supposed to communicate additional information on that ticket? Nothing in the responses from ARIN provide a URL or email address for submitting further information. If the complainant submits further information through the fraud reporting form online, a brand new ticket gets created with no linkage to the original. 2) how long should someone expect to wait to hear back from a human? Even an acknowledgement (non-automated) would go a long way to addressing the feeling most people would have that their submission went into a black hole. 3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN online? Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any complainant has to provide contact info anyway! So, not policy-related per se, yet it sort-of is. -Adam -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ndavis at arin.net Tue Jun 23 13:05:43 2015 From: ndavis at arin.net (Nate Davis) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:05:43 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is probably not the right place to ask, but I'm unsure where to best ask. And at least it's somewhat relevant given recent talk of large actors in the CNNIC area gaming ARIN... 1) when someone submits a fraud report to ARIN, how are they supposed to communicate additional information on that ticket? Nothing in the responses from ARIN provide a URL or email address for submitting further information. If the complainant submits further information through the fraud reporting form online, a brand new ticket gets created with no linkage to the original. 2) how long should someone expect to wait to hear back from a human? Even an acknowledgement (non-automated) would go a long way to addressing the feeling most people would have that their submission went into a black hole. 3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN online? Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any complainant has to provide contact info anyway! So, not policy-related per se, yet it sort-of is. -Adam -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Adam ? I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your questions posted to PPML and let you know that we will respond as soon as possible. Many of us, involved in the responses to your questions, are in various meetings today but will reply back to you (and PPML) as soon as we can. Regards, Nate Davis Chief Operating Officer American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From athompso at athompso.net Tue Jun 23 13:39:01 2015 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:39:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Funny :-) I was talking about fraud reports, not messages posted here. Anecdotally, I know of several people (now including me) who've submitted fraud reports and never heard anything back. At least someone at ARIN has a sense of humor. (At least, I prefer that interpretation to the other possibilities!) -Adam On June 23, 2015 12:05:43 PM CDT, Nate Davis wrote: >This is probably not the right place to ask, but I'm unsure where to >best ask. >And at least it's somewhat relevant given recent talk of large actors >in the CNNIC area gaming ARIN... > >1) when someone submits a fraud report to ARIN, how are they supposed >to communicate additional information on that ticket? Nothing in the >responses from ARIN provide a URL or email address for submitting >further information. If the complainant submits further information >through the fraud reporting form online, a brand new ticket gets >created with no linkage to the original. > >2) how long should someone expect to wait to hear back from a human? >Even an acknowledgement (non-automated) would go a long way to >addressing the feeling most people would have that their submission >went into a black hole. > >3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN online? >Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any complainant has >to provide contact info anyway! > >So, not policy-related per se, yet it sort-of is. > >-Adam >-- >Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > >Adam ? I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your questions posted to PPML >and let you know that we will respond as >soon as possible. Many of us, involved in the responses to your >questions, are in various meetings today but will >reply back to you (and PPML) as soon as we can. > >Regards, > >Nate Davis >Chief Operating Officer >American Registry for Internet Numbers -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Tue Jun 23 16:06:01 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:06:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - June 2015 Message-ID: <5589BC29.5000602@arin.net> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 18 June 2015. Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC recommended it for adoption; it will be posted as Recommended Draft Policy for discussion: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments The AC accepted the following Proposals as Draft Policies (each will be posted for discussion): ARIN-prop-219 Out of region use ARIN-prop-220 Transfers and Multi-national Networks ARIN-prop-221 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers The AC is continuing to work on: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify 8.2 section to better reflect how ARIN handles reorganizations 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 info at arin.net Tue Jun 23 16:06:18 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:06:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use Message-ID: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 Out of region use On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-219 Out of region use" as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_5.html You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft Policy 2015-5 on the Public Policy Mailing List. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration * Technically Sound * Supported by the Community The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 Out of region use Date: 23 June 2015 Problem statement: Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out or region use of ARIN registered resources. This has created confusion and controversy within the ARIN community for some time. Earlier work on this issue has explored several options to restrict or otherwise limit out of region use. None of these options have gained consensus within the community. The next logical option is a proposal that clearly permits out of region use while addressing the key concerns expressed about unlimited openness to out of region use and enables ARIN staff to implement the policy efficiently. Policy statement: Create new Section X: ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the equivalent of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service region, respectively. In addition, the applicant must have a real and substantial connection with the ARIN region, which the applicant shall be responsible for proving. A real and substantial connection shall be defined as carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner, whether for or not for profit. The determination as to whether an entity is carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner shall be made by ARIN. Simply being incorporated in the ARIN region shall not be sufficient, on its own, to prove that an entity is carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner. Methods that entities may consider using, including cumulatively, to prove that they are carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner include: ? Demonstrating a physical presence in the ARIN region through a bricks and mortar location that is actually used for the purposes of conducting business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner. That is to say, the location is not merely a registered office that serves no other business purpose. ? Demonstrating that the entity has staff in the ARIN region. The greater the number of staff, the stronger this connecting factor is. ? Demonstrating that the entity holds assets in the ARIN region. The greater the asset value, the stronger this connecting factor is. ? Demonstrating that the entity provides services to or solicits sales from residents of the ARIN region. ? Demonstrating that the entity holds annual meetings in the ARIN region. ? Demonstrating that the entity raises investment capital from investors in the ARIN region. ? Demonstrating that the entity has a registered office in the ARIN region, although this factor on its own shall not be sufficient. ? Any other method that the entity considers appropriate. The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources that will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource requests from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is justified by need located within another RIR's service region, the officer of the applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not been used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests. Comments: a) Timetable for implementation: Various iterations of this policy have been presented and debated by ARIN for well over a year now. Given the amount of time that has already been spent on developing a policy, ideally, this policy would be implemented as soon as possible. b) Explanation of draft policy: The draft policy addresses both the problem statement as well as the concerns raised at ARIN 35 by participants as well as ARIN counsel. Firstly, the draft policy addresses the concerns of ARIN counsel as well as some of the participants at ARIN 35 by ensuring that anyone requesting numbered resources from ARIN has a real and substantial connection with the ARIN region. This should go a long way to addressing concerns about fraud, legal liability, and interference with the jurisdiction of other RIRs. In addition, by placing the burden of proof for demonstrating a real and substantial connection with the ARIN region on the applicant, the amount of work required of ARIN staff to apply the policy will be reduced. The factors noted above are suggestions that an entity may use to demonstrate to ARIN that it is carrying on business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner. These factors are all indicative, some more than others, that an entity has a real and substantial connection to the ARIN region through the carrying on of business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner. Not all of the factors will apply in a given case and proving a single factor may not be enough to satisfy ARIN that an entity is carrying on business in the region in a meaningful manner. The list of factors is meant to be quite broad, including an open-ended factor, in order to capture the diversity of businesses that operate in the ARIN region and that may justifiably require numbered resources from ARIN. This approach is very similar to the practical method that courts typically apply to assess whether parties have a sufficient connection to a jurisdiction so as to require them to submit themselves to the courts of that jurisdiction. This draft policy is a substantial improvement over the previous version of ARIN-2014-1 in terms of reducing the overall risk to the community by requiring a real and substantial connection between an entity requesting resources and the ARIN region. From info at arin.net Tue Jun 23 16:06:30 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:06:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks Message-ID: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-220 Transfers and Multi-national Networks" as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_6.html You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft Policy 2015-6 on the Public Policy Mailing List. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration * Technically Sound * Supported by the Community The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 Transfers and Multi-national Networks Date: 23 June 2015 Problem statement: Some organizations within the ARIN region are currently unable to receive IPv4 space via transfer based on current ARIN policy, which prohibits address space used outside of the ARIN region from being considered efficiently utilized. This proposal would allow organizations with a strong and long-standing presence in the ARIN region to be able to receive number resources via transfer for their global operations. Policy statement: When evaluating transfer requests, ARIN will not consider the geographic location where an organization is utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses if that organization, its parent, or a subsidiary: 1. has been an ARIN customer for at least 36 months; AND 2. is currently in good standing with ARIN; AND 3. is currently using IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in the ARIN region; AND 4. can demonstrate it has a meaningful business that operates in the ARIN region. From info at arin.net Tue Jun 23 16:06:46 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:06:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Message-ID: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-221 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers" as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_7.html You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft Policy 2015-7 on the Public Policy Mailing List. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration * Technically Sound * Supported by the Community The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Date: 23 June 2015 Problem statement: ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that section was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much more complicated than is really necessary for transfers. In practice, ARIN staff applies much more lenient needs assessment to section 8 IPv4 transfer requests than to free pool requests, as 24-month needs are much more difficult to assess to the same level of detail. This proposal seeks to dramatically simplify the needs assessment process for 8.3 transfers, while still allowing organizations with corner-case requirements to apply under existing policy if necessary. Policy statement: 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the requesting organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their aggregate IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational network within 24 months. Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section 4 of the NRPM. Comments: a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. Anything else From info at arin.net Tue Jun 23 16:07:00 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:07:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments Message-ID: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended ARIN-2015-1 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. ARIN-2015-1 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-1 on the PPML prior to the ARIN Public Policy Consultation at ARIN 36 in Montreal in October 2015. Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus for adopting this as policy. The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments Date: 23 June 2015 AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: ARIN-2015-1 enables fair and impartial number resource administration by providing a concrete threshold (13 active sites) under which end-user organizations who have a large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low subnet and/or user counts, can be reasonably assured of receiving IPv6 address space from ARIN. This proposal is technically sound, in that it retains reasonable thresholds on obtaining IPv6 assignments from ARIN in order to support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical manner to the extent feasible. It has been well supported by the community on PPML and at the ARIN PPC at NANOG in San Francisco, where nearly everyone agreed that this was a step in the right direction. To the extent that some in the community desire even more relaxed IPv6 assignment policy, the AC encourages those community members to discuss on PPML and/or submit as additional policy proposals any further changes they would like to see. Problem Statement: Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users whose costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is designed to mitigate. Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering per NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class of end user would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. are designed to mitigate. While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) under 6.5.8.1 e. ("By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable"), it fails to provide a concrete threshold under which this class of end-user can be reasonably assured of receiving address space. Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number resource continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit); or are likely to adopt technical measures (such as using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are widely held to be damaging to the IPv6 Internet. Policy Statement: Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting one of the following criteria: a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or; c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: > An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected impact than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power or energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management and control, etc. > Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect 2000 or more individuals either internal or external to the organization. > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for guaranteed uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by ULA (see RFC 4193). > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such as a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS. Comments: a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. General Comments: - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and insert a new subsection e. with the following text: "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites within 12 months, or; - The threshold of 13 sites was chosen based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which specifies 13 sites as the minimum number of sites required to receive a /40 initial assignment, to attempt to provide a balance between the costs of carrying the prefix vs. the costs to the end-user in renumbering. - Further constraints were added in that the sites must be in a contiguous network, to further attempt to reduce the costs of carrying the prefix - By introducing this new threshold, we attempt to restore equivalency of number resources for those end-users whose economic costs to renumber are equal to that of other end-users who would qualify for a direct assignment under 6.5.8.1 c. and d. c. Example: Example of an end-user who would not qualify under 6.5.8.2 c. or d.: - 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent - 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) - 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) - 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) - Not multihomed - Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT This end-user only benefits minimally from IPv6 multihoming as they are using an IPVPN, and multihoming provides benefit only for Internet transit, not within their IPVPN. As such requiring the end-user to multihome under NRPM 6.5.8.2 b. is wasteful. This end user currently uses RFC1918 IPv4 address space + a relatively small amount of IPv4 GUA + NAT (currently accepted industry practice for IPv4). Changing providers involves only renumbering the small amount of IPv4 GUA. Forcing the end-user to acquire an IPv4 direct assignment under NRPM 6.5.8.2 a. in order to be able to get a direct IPv6 assignment is incredibly wasteful of a valuable and limited number resource. It also forces the customer occupy more routing table space, as now an IPv4 PI prefix must be routed in addition to an IPv6 PI prefix, instead of using IPv4 PA + IPv6 PI (where only space for an IPv6 PI prefix is required). ##### ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html Date of Assessment: June 11, 2015 ___ 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) This proposal would add a criteria item to 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria). Because each of the existing criteria items in that section can independently qualify an organization for IPv6 address space from ARIN, this new criteria item adds an additional qualification criteria. It makes it easier for some organizations to qualify, and does not make it more difficult for anyone. In particular, it creates a new criteria point that allows any end-user organization large enough to have 13 sites to immediately qualify for IPv6 address space from ARIN. ___ 2. Comments A. ARIN Staff Comments This proposal can be implemented as written. Minimal staff training and preparation would be needed to implement this if it were to become policy. We see no negative impacts. B. ARIN General Counsel ? Legal Assessment Counsel sees no material legal issues in this policy. ___ 3. Resource Impact This policy would require minimal staff training and preparation. We see no negative impacts. ___ 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments Date: 24 March 2015 Problem Statement: Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users whose costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is designed to mitigate. Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering per NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class of end user would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. are designed to mitigate. While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) under 6.5.8.1 e. ("By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable"), it fails to provide a concrete threshold under which this class of end-user can be reasonably assured of receiving address space. Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number resource continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit); or are likely to adopt technical measures (such as using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are widely held to be damaging to the IPv6 Internet. Policy Statement: Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting one of the following criteria: a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or; c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: > An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected impact than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power or energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management and control, etc. > Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect 2000 or more individuals either internal or external to the organization. > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for guaranteed uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by ULA (see RFC 4193). > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such as a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS. Comments: a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. General Comments: - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and insert a new subsection e. with the following text: "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites within 12 months, or; - The threshold of 13 sites was chosen based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which specifies 13 sites as the minimum number of sites required to receive a /40 initial assignment, to attempt to provide a balance between the costs of carrying the prefix vs. the costs to the end-user in renumbering. - Further constraints were added in that the sites must be in a contiguous network, to further attempt to reduce the costs of carrying the prefix - By introducing this new threshold, we attempt to restore equivalency of number resources for those end-users whose economic costs to renumber are equal to that of other end-users who would qualify for a direct assignment under 6.5.8.1 c. and d. c. Example: Example of an end-user who would not qualify under 6.5.8.2 c. or d.: - 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent - 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) - 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) - 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) - Not multihomed - Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT This end-user only benefits minimally from IPv6 multihoming as they are using an IPVPN, and multihoming provides benefit only for Internet transit, not within their IPVPN. As such requiring the end-user to multihome under NRPM 6.5.8.2 b. is wasteful. This end user currently uses RFC1918 IPv4 address space + a relatively small amount of IPv4 GUA + NAT (currently accepted industry practice for IPv4). Changing providers involves only renumbering the small amount of IPv4 GUA. Forcing the end-user to acquire an IPv4 direct assignment under NRPM 6.5.8.2 a. in order to be able to get a direct IPv6 assignment is incredibly wasteful of a valuable and limited number resource. It also forces the customer occupy more routing table space, as now an IPv4 PI prefix must be routed in addition to an IPv6 PI prefix, instead of using IPv4 PA + IPv6 PI (where only space for an IPv6 PI prefix is required). From richardj at arin.net Tue Jun 23 17:11:02 2015 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 21:11:02 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Adam, Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. From: Adam Thompson > 1) when someone submits a fraud report to ARIN, how are they supposed to communicate additional information on that ticket? Nothing in the responses from ARIN provide a URL or email address for submitting further information. If the complainant submits further information through the fraud reporting form online, a brand new ticket gets created with no linkage to the original. 2) how long should someone expect to wait to hear back from a human? Even an acknowledgement (non-automated) would go a long way to addressing the feeling most people would have that their submission went into a black hole. Fraud reports receive an initial automated response from ARIN. The majority of the fraud reports we receive are out of scope. These often include someone attempting to sell services to ARIN or to lodge a complaint about the poor quality of service being delivered by their ISP. Not all fraud reports receive a response from a human at ARIN, for this reason. In the case of a legitimate fraud report, we respond to the reporter letting them know we are looking into the issue. Once this communication has been made, ARIN and the person reporting the fraud are engaged in a ticketed email exchange. We typically are able to respond within a few business days, however our response times have slowed in the past months due to an increased workload related to the depletion of the IPv4 resource pool. If you have submitted a report in the last fourteen days, you should hear back from us shortly. You are also welcome to contact us via our telephone help-desk for status information. 3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN online? Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any complainant has to provide contact info anyway! Tickets submitted in ARIN Online are visible to other points of contact associated with the same organization. We require users submit fraud reports outside of ARIN Online for that reason. Even so, users should still be able to submit information using the fraud reporting tool without having to log out of ARIN Online. We will take a closer look to make sure that is working. Thank you again. Richard Jimmerson CIO & Acting Director of Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 23 18:36:57 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:36:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 > Transfers and Multi-national Networks OPPOSED. Policy violates PDP section 3.2. The policy requires ARIN to consider addresses used outside the region but the PDP restricts policy scope to "number resources managed within the ARIN region." Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to provide favorable treatment to longstanding customers. PDP 4.1 requires "fair and impartial" administration. Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to facilitate number usage in locations worldwide but refuses to serve would-be registrants in those locations unless they also have a major presence in the ARIN region. PDP 4.1 requires "fair and impartial" administration. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 23 18:48:35 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:48:35 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 > Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 > Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > > Date: 23 June 2015 > > Problem statement: > > ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need > requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that section > was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much more > complicated than is really necessary for transfers. In practice, ARIN staff > applies much more lenient needs assessment to section 8 IPv4 transfer > requests than to free pool requests, as 24-month needs are much more > difficult to assess to the same level of detail. > > This proposal seeks to dramatically simplify the needs assessment process > for 8.3 transfers, while still allowing organizations with corner-case > requirements to apply under existing policy if necessary. > > Policy statement: > > 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers Was this intended to be 8.3.x? It doesn't make sense to me in the transfer principles section (8.1). > IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the requesting > organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their aggregate > IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational network > within 24 months. I'm inclined to support changing the 8.3 recipient conditions consistent with this idea but it's not clear to me how this text would fit with what's already there. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 18:55:08 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:55:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 > > Transfers and Multi-national Networks > > OPPOSED. > Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests? I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. > Policy violates PDP section 3.2. The policy requires ARIN to consider > addresses used outside the region but the PDP restricts policy scope > to "number resources managed within the ARIN region." > I believe that is the whole point: while these number resources may be *used* outside the ARIN region, they are still *managed* within the ARIN region (by a multinational network with meaningful business that operates in the ARIN region, and is currently using IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in the ARIN region). So I don't see a conflict with the PDP here, just a disagreement with the principle of allowing use of ARIN-issued and -managed addresses outside the ARIN region. Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to provide > favorable treatment to longstanding customers. PDP 4.1 requires "fair > and impartial" administration. > > Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to > facilitate number usage in locations worldwide but refuses to serve > would-be registrants in those locations unless they also have a major > presence in the ARIN region. PDP 4.1 requires "fair and impartial" > administration. > The PDP actually states that "Internet number resource policy must provide for fair and impartial management of resources according to unambiguous guidelines and criteria." It doesn't mean "the rules must be the same for everyone", but rather that there must be unambiguous rules, guidelines, and criteria, that are applied to everyone according to the text of the policies, not according to the whim of the resource analyst. We can wait and see what the ARIN Staff and Legal analysis says on the subject, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a conflict with the PDP here either. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 18:59:53 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:59:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 > > Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 > > Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > > > > Date: 23 June 2015 > > > > Problem statement: > > > > ARIN transfer policy currently inherits all its demonstrated need > > requirements for IPv4 transfers from NRPM sections 4. Because that > section > > was written primarily to deal with free pool allocations, it is much more > > complicated than is really necessary for transfers. In practice, ARIN > staff > > applies much more lenient needs assessment to section 8 IPv4 transfer > > requests than to free pool requests, as 24-month needs are much more > > difficult to assess to the same level of detail. > > > > This proposal seeks to dramatically simplify the needs assessment process > > for 8.3 transfers, while still allowing organizations with corner-case > > requirements to apply under existing policy if necessary. > > > > Policy statement: > > > > 8.1.x Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > > Was this intended to be 8.3.x? It doesn't make sense to me in the > transfer principles section (8.1). > No, that was as intended. See below. > > IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the > requesting > > organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their > aggregate > > IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational > network > > within 24 months. > > I'm inclined to support changing the 8.3 recipient conditions > consistent with this idea but it's not clear to me how this text would > fit with what's already there. > Currently, both 8.3 and 8.4 reference "current ARIN policies" for demonstrating need ("The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address resources under current ARIN policies"). This new section 8.1.x would add a new type of policy that would allow organizations requesting simple 8.3 or 8.4 IPv4 transfers to bypass all the complexity and detailed utilization reporting requirements of NRPM section 4. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 23 18:59:32 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:59:32 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use In-Reply-To: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net> References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 > Out of region use OPPOSED. This draft calls for ARIN staff to make highly subjective value judgments which will, by their nature, vary from individual to individual and probably even from an individual's mood to mood. This would make a fair and impartial implementation of such a policy impossible. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 23 19:16:37 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:16:37 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >> > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 >> > Transfers and Multi-national Networks >> >> OPPOSED. > > Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think > it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is > utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests? > I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, > independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. Hi Scott, Sure. It grants large, multinational corporations unhindered access to IP addresses for worldwide use. Such addresses are denied to smaller organizations in the same localities who can't claim an ARIN-region presence. The addresses are also rendered less accessible to organizations solely within the ARIN region who can't support a purchase with profit from a region where addresses are in higher demand. It's a cross-subsidy (one source and consequence of monopoly power) for organizations many of whom are already close enough to being monopolies as makes no difference. Bottom line: it's grossly unfair to all of us who aren't large multinational corporations. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Tue Jun 23 19:22:01 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:22:01 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> > IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the >> > requesting >> > organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their >> > aggregate >> > IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational >> > network >> > within 24 months. >> >> I'm inclined to support changing the 8.3 recipient conditions >> consistent with this idea but it's not clear to me how this text would >> fit with what's already there. > > > Currently, both 8.3 and 8.4 reference "current ARIN policies" for > demonstrating need ("The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a > 24-month supply of IP address resources under current ARIN policies"). This > new section 8.1.x would add a new type of policy that would allow > organizations requesting simple 8.3 or 8.4 IPv4 transfers to bypass all the > complexity and detailed utilization reporting requirements of NRPM section > 4. Ah. In that case, I'm opposed to the policy as written. As a practical matter, the text does not sensibly fit where indicated. If placed there, it would make the surrounding policies harder, not easier, to understand. As a policy matter, I'm virulently opposed to using said criteria for out-region 8.4 transfers. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 23 19:57:41 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:57:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9D188720-43C7-47D3-89B0-BE5602589653@delong.com> > On Jun 23, 2015, at 14:11 , Richard Jimmerson wrote: > > Hello Adam, > > Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. > > We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. > > > From: Adam Thompson > >> >> 1) when someone submits a fraud report to ARIN, how are they supposed to communicate additional information on that ticket? Nothing in the responses from ARIN provide a URL or email address for submitting further information. If the complainant submits further information through the fraud reporting form online, a brand new ticket gets created with no linkage to the original. >> >> 2) how long should someone expect to wait to hear back from a human? Even an acknowledgement (non-automated) would go a long way to addressing the feeling most people would have that their submission went into a black hole. > > > Fraud reports receive an initial automated response from ARIN. > > The majority of the fraud reports we receive are out of scope. These often include someone attempting to sell services to ARIN or to lodge a complaint about the poor quality of service being delivered by their ISP. Not all fraud reports receive a response from a human at ARIN, for this reason. I suggest that it would not be hard to develop an out-of-scope form letter that could be sent to the submitters of such reports. This has multiple advantages: 1. It will potentially educate such submitters and reduce the number of these they submit in the future. 2. It shows that ARIN has seriously reviewed their submission, even if they aren?t able to do anything about it. I will note that if this conversation goes much further, it may be appropriate to take it to one of the mailing lists for operational discussions and/or technical discussions about ARIN operations. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 19:59:33 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:59:33 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Scott Leibrand > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > >> > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 > >> > Transfers and Multi-national Networks > >> > >> OPPOSED. > > > > Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think > > it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization > is > > utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer > requests? > > I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, > > independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. > > Hi Scott, > > Sure. > > It grants large, multinational corporations unhindered access to IP > addresses for worldwide use. Such addresses are denied to smaller > organizations in the same localities who can't claim an ARIN-region > presence. The intention is that organizations without an ARIN-region presence (who have no particular need to be serviced by ARIN vs. their local RIR) would obtain addresses from the transfer market, and if those addresses come from the ARIN region, they would be transferred to the local RIR via an 8.4 transfer. Since that avenue is open to organization of all size in the APNIC and RIPE regions, and the AfriNIC region still has plenty of addresses in their free pool, that means this concern really only applies to the LACNIC region, which currently has a policy proposal under discussion to allow inbound inter-RIR transfers, correct? In other words, this concern would be addressed if LACNIC passes their inter-RIR transfer policy, and ARIN updates our transfer policy to allow non-reciprocal transfers to the LACNIC region? -Scott > The addresses are also rendered less accessible to > organizations solely within the ARIN region who can't support a > purchase with profit from a region where addresses are in higher > demand. It's a cross-subsidy (one source and consequence of monopoly > power) for organizations many of whom are already close enough to > being monopolies as makes no difference. > > Bottom line: it's grossly unfair to all of us who aren't large > multinational corporations. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 20:01:29 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:01:29 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Scott Leibrand > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, William Herrin wrote: > >> > IPv4 transfer recipients must demonstrate (and an officer of the > >> > requesting > >> > organization must attest) that they will use at least 50% of their > >> > aggregate > >> > IPv4 addresses (including the requested resources) on an operational > >> > network > >> > within 24 months. > >> > >> I'm inclined to support changing the 8.3 recipient conditions > >> consistent with this idea but it's not clear to me how this text would > >> fit with what's already there. > > > > > > Currently, both 8.3 and 8.4 reference "current ARIN policies" for > > demonstrating need ("The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a > > 24-month supply of IP address resources under current ARIN policies"). > This > > new section 8.1.x would add a new type of policy that would allow > > organizations requesting simple 8.3 or 8.4 IPv4 transfers to bypass all > the > > complexity and detailed utilization reporting requirements of NRPM > section > > 4. > > Ah. In that case, I'm opposed to the policy as written. > > As a practical matter, the text does not sensibly fit where indicated. > If placed there, it would make the surrounding policies harder, not > easier, to understand. > Do you have any suggestions for improving clarity? > As a policy matter, I'm virulently opposed to using said criteria for > out-region 8.4 transfers. > This would not apply to 8.4 transfers *out of* the ARIN regions, just 8.4 transfers *into* the ARIN region. ARIN does not (and would not) enforce needs assessment on 8.4 transfers to organizations in other regions: that is up to the recipient's RIR. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:14:32 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:14:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use In-Reply-To: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net> References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net> Message-ID: <5589F668.4050000@matthew.at> On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 > Out of region use > > I support this policy. The whole point of the Internet and all sorts of subsequent technologies such as ubiquitous virtualization, virtual networks and the like is that physical location does not and should not matter. If I am legitimately using IP addresses on the global Internet and for whatever reason wish to move around where I am using which addresses, the regional nature of the registries (a convenience created to make it easier for people to "get addresses locally") should not restrict this. There is no legitimate reason why policy should prevent me from suspending a rack full of running VMs here at my house and resuming them a few seconds later on the other side of the planet, using exactly the same IP addresses they're using now. To the extent I wish to acquire more addresses, it is reasonable for there to be a requirement that I have a real business presence of some sort in the region where I'm requesting the space. Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:19:17 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:19:17 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Message-ID: <5589F785.5050006@matthew.at> On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 > Transfers and Multi-national Networks I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not they are "utilized". Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly reasonable. Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to record transfers. Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:20:54 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:20:54 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> Message-ID: <5589F7E6.2070804@matthew.at> On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 > Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers I support this policy, but would be even happier if we simply had a trigger that said "when ARIN is out of IPv4 addresses, this simplified policy replaces all other tests for IPv4 transfers and the other sections are inactive until such time as ARIN has a new large free pool of IPv4 addresses (never)" Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 23 20:21:43 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:21:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: <5589F785.5050006@matthew.at> References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> <5589F785.5050006@matthew.at> Message-ID: <7A7139E8-20FB-4FFA-822C-2B7F02E5A926@delong.com> I agree with your reasoning, but as a conclusion, I support the broader-based 2015-5 as I believe it provides a more flexible solution to a wider swath of the ARIN community. Owen > On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:19 , Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 >> Transfers and Multi-national Networks > > I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not they are "utilized". Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly reasonable. > > Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to record transfers. > > Matthew Kaufman > matthew at matthew.at > _______________________________________________ > 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 matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:25:06 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:25:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> Message-ID: <5589F8E2.2040001@matthew.at> On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote: > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was fully supportive until I got to "many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit)". Since there's still major barriers to deploying IPv6, despite this being over a decade since it should have happened, the amount of popcorn I am able to consume as an observer over the next few years if smaller enterprises find even more reasons to not adopt v6 (such as the one this policy wishes to correct) is vastly increased. I like popcorn, and so I'm opposed on that basis alone. Matthew Kaufman matthew at eeph.com From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:27:25 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:27:25 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Message-ID: <5589F96D.5050507@matthew.at> On 6/23/2015 3:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 >> Transfers and Multi-national Networks > OPPOSED. > > Policy violates PDP section 3.2. The policy requires ARIN to consider > addresses used outside the region but the PDP restricts policy scope > to "number resources managed within the ARIN region." Perhaps we need a change to that. > > Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to provide > favorable treatment to longstanding customers. PDP 4.1 requires "fair > and impartial" administration. I can't remember the last time we had such... it would be a breath of fresh air though, wouldn't it? > > Policy violates PDP section 4.1. The policy requires ARIN to > facilitate number usage in locations worldwide but refuses to serve > would-be registrants in those locations unless they also have a major > presence in the ARIN region. PDP 4.1 requires "fair and impartial" > administration. Hm. Good point there. All RIRs should be facilitating number usage in locations worldwide... and it seemed reasonable to require a local presence, but maybe you're right that even that shouldn't be required. Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:28:57 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:28:57 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Message-ID: <5589F9C9.5080204@matthew.at> On 6/23/2015 3:55 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN > wrote: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 > > Transfers and Multi-national Networks > > OPPOSED. > > > Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you > think it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an > organization is utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when > evaluating transfer requests? I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist > argument behind your position, independent of the appeal to authority > (of the PDP) that you gave below. > > Policy violates PDP section 3.2. The policy requires ARIN to consider > addresses used outside the region but the PDP restricts policy scope > to "number resources managed within the ARIN region." > > > I believe that is the whole point: while these number resources may be > *used* outside the ARIN region, they are still *managed* within the > ARIN region (by a multinational network with meaningful business that > operates in the ARIN region, and is currently using IPv4 or IPv6 > addresses in the ARIN region). So I don't see a conflict with the PDP > here, just a disagreement with the principle of allowing use of > ARIN-issued and -managed addresses outside the ARIN region. > Makes sense to me. My management consoles rarely run in the same region where my VMs do. Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 20:31:52 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:31:52 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <5589F7E6.2070804@matthew.at> References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> <5589F7E6.2070804@matthew.at> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 >> Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers >> > > I support this policy, but would be even happier if we simply had a > trigger that said "when ARIN is out of IPv4 addresses, this simplified > policy replaces all other tests for IPv4 transfers and the other sections > are inactive until such time as ARIN has a new large free pool of IPv4 > addresses (never)" The main reason we didn't write a replacement for section 4 is this: Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead > demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section 4 > of the NRPM. There will likely be some sections of the community who feel that their particular need for IPv4 is better met under section 4 than under this simplified policy. Rather than trying to identify every such need and write in exceptions, I felt it would be better to first allow everyone using the transfer market to opt out of section 4 entirely, and then once we have some experience with which requests actually still end up using section 4, we will have some data on which parts of it we need to keep and which can be eliminated in a simplification cleanup proposal. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:35:06 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:35:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> Message-ID: <5589FB3A.3010206@matthew.at> On 6/23/2015 4:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 >>>> Transfers and Multi-national Networks >>> OPPOSED. >> Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think >> it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is >> utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests? >> I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position, >> independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below. > Hi Scott, > > Sure. > > It grants large, multinational corporations unhindered access to IP > addresses for worldwide use. As opposed to now, where large multinational corporation have unhindered access to IP addresses that they use worldwide? (Many of whom are using these addresses to allow small companies to deploy services all over the world, even) We could just ask large multinational corporations to spend a little more on lawyer to create more subsidiaries and/or just buy up the right to use address space without bothering to update the registry, if that would make you happier. > Such addresses are denied to smaller > organizations in the same localities who can't claim an ARIN-region > presence. Such addresses are about to be denied to anyone who doesn't have cash to buy them (except perhaps, for a few more months, in Africa). Meanwhile, there's lots of addresses available on the transfer market in these other regions that they can access. What's the problem exactly? > The addresses are also rendered less accessible to > organizations solely within the ARIN region who can't support a > purchase with profit from a region where addresses are in higher > demand. It's a cross-subsidy (one source and consequence of monopoly > power) for organizations many of whom are already close enough to > being monopolies as makes no difference. All this says is that long before we ran out of addresses we should have stopped having them be regional. There's a whole lot of legitimate reasons for entities, small and large, to expect to be able to portably use their address space anywhere in the world... especially if they've paid a bunch of real cash for it, as will be happening. > > Bottom line: it's grossly unfair to all of us who aren't large > multinational corporations. Everything is unfair to people who don't have the cash to buy address space inside or outside their region. Those who can afford it will do whatever other steps are needed (skipping registration, forming subsidiaries) because now, and in the future, addresses themselves will cost enough that such things are a tiny fraction of the transaction cost. Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at From matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:36:53 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:36:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: <7A7139E8-20FB-4FFA-822C-2B7F02E5A926@delong.com> References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> <5589F785.5050006@matthew.at> <7A7139E8-20FB-4FFA-822C-2B7F02E5A926@delong.com> Message-ID: <5589FBA5.3090501@matthew.at> I think I'd be ok with that... do we need language in one or the other that explains what happens if both pass? Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at On 6/23/2015 5:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I agree with your reasoning, but as a conclusion, I support the broader-based 2015-5 as I believe it provides a more flexible solution to a wider swath of the ARIN community. > > Owen > >> On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:19 , Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >> On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 >>> Transfers and Multi-national Networks >> I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not they are "utilized". Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly reasonable. >> >> Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to record transfers. >> >> Matthew Kaufman >> matthew at matthew.at >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 23 20:39:13 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:39:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> <5589F7E6.2070804@matthew.at> Message-ID: I am opposed to this proposal. It is yet another attempt to chip away at needs basis by those seeking to provide for unlimited and unrestricted transfers. The community has repeatedly indicated that the preservation of needs basis is important and virtually every proposal seeking to eliminate it has been rebuffed by the community. This proposal should, IMHO, be recognized for what it is? A clear effort to reduce the needs-basis requirements for transfers. Owen > On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:31 , Scott Leibrand wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: > On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 > Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers > > I support this policy, but would be even happier if we simply had a trigger that said "when ARIN is out of IPv4 addresses, this simplified policy replaces all other tests for IPv4 transfers and the other sections are inactive until such time as ARIN has a new large free pool of IPv4 addresses (never)" > > The main reason we didn't write a replacement for section 4 is this: > > Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may instead demonstrate the need for number resources using the criteria in section 4 of the NRPM. > > There will likely be some sections of the community who feel that their particular need for IPv4 is better met under section 4 than under this simplified policy. Rather than trying to identify every such need and write in exceptions, I felt it would be better to first allow everyone using the transfer market to opt out of section 4 entirely, and then once we have some experience with which requests actually still end up using section 4, we will have some data on which parts of it we need to keep and which can be eliminated in a simplification cleanup proposal. > > -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 scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 20:42:06 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:42:06 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks In-Reply-To: <5589FBA5.3090501@matthew.at> References: <5589BC46.20403@arin.net> <5589F785.5050006@matthew.at> <7A7139E8-20FB-4FFA-822C-2B7F02E5A926@delong.com> <5589FBA5.3090501@matthew.at> Message-ID: I believe the text is compatible as-is. If section 4 says out of region use is allowed, and then section 8 (where this one would go) also says geographic location doesn't matter, then ARIN will follow whichever of those they get to first, and we might just have slightly more lenient rules for transfers than free pool (waiting list) allocations. But if ARIN staff thinks there would be a conflict between the two if both are passed, they will flag that in the Staff and Legal assessment, and we can add any language needed to clarify. Alternately, the AC can decide to merge the two proposals or only recommend one of them for adoption if both look like they have support and only one is needed. -Scott On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I think I'd be ok with that... do we need language in one or the other > that explains what happens if both pass? > > Matthew Kaufman > matthew at matthew.at > > > On 6/23/2015 5:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I agree with your reasoning, but as a conclusion, I support the >> broader-based 2015-5 as I believe it provides a more flexible solution to a >> wider swath of the ARIN community. >> >> Owen >> >> On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:19 , Matthew Kaufman wrote: >>> >>> On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >>> >>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6 >>>> Transfers and Multi-national Networks >>>> >>> I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be >>> utilizing its address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are >>> being used at this instant should not have any bearing on whether or not >>> they are "utilized". Clearly if I have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with >>> running VMs, and they're running on physical hardware in Virginia, that /24 >>> is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move them to a physical >>> host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized... they're >>> just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's >>> perfectly reasonable. >>> >>> Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to >>> work around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even >>> bothering to record transfers. >>> >>> Matthew Kaufman >>> matthew at matthew.at >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 matthew at matthew.at Tue Jun 23 20:42:57 2015 From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:42:57 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> <5589F7E6.2070804@matthew.at> Message-ID: <5589FD11.3070309@matthew.at> And so we're back to John's question of weeks ago: why is "needs basis" the right test in a transfer-only world? As he pointed out, if we'd started only with transfers, it would have been an extremely unlikely means of regulation. Is it simply because "the community" (all dozen or so, I gather) is so familiar with needs testing that it has become a comfortable religious fallback? Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at On 6/23/2015 5:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I am opposed to this proposal. > > It is yet another attempt to chip away at needs basis by those seeking > to provide for unlimited and unrestricted transfers. > > The community has repeatedly indicated that the preservation of needs > basis is important and virtually every proposal > seeking to eliminate it has been rebuffed by the community. > > This proposal should, IMHO, be recognized for what it is? A clear > effort to reduce the needs-basis requirements for transfers. > > Owen > >> On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:31 , Scott Leibrand > > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Kaufman > > wrote: >> >> On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 >> Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers >> >> >> I support this policy, but would be even happier if we simply had >> a trigger that said "when ARIN is out of IPv4 addresses, this >> simplified policy replaces all other tests for IPv4 transfers and >> the other sections are inactive until such time as ARIN has a new >> large free pool of IPv4 addresses (never)" >> >> >> The main reason we didn't write a replacement for section 4 is this: >> >> Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may >> instead demonstrate the need for number resources using the >> criteria in section 4 of the NRPM. >> >> >> There will likely be some sections of the community who feel that >> their particular need for IPv4 is better met under section 4 than >> under this simplified policy. Rather than trying to identify every >> such need and write in exceptions, I felt it would be better to first >> allow everyone using the transfer market to opt out of section 4 >> entirely, and then once we have some experience with which requests >> actually still end up using section 4, we will have some data on >> which parts of it we need to keep and which can be eliminated in a >> simplification cleanup proposal. >> >> -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 athompso at athompso.net Tue Jun 23 20:46:26 2015 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:46:26 -0500 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <5589F8E2.2040001@matthew.at> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> <5589F8E2.2040001@matthew.at> Message-ID: I'll point out that at my current employer, I cannot justify obtaining PI v6 space. So I've deployed ULA + NPT in order to guarantee uniqueness. I see IPv6 allocation making some of the same assumptions humans have made through time (e.g. "640k should be enough for anyone "), so I'm not sure I *should* be able to get PI space. NAT, NAT66, NPT, etc. are ubiquitous enough that anyone designing "pathological" protocols that rely on embedded IP addresses (e.g. FTP, SIP, et al.) should probably be taken out behind the shed and put out of their misery. Based on that, I disagree that ULA+NAT is harmful to the internet anymore. That ship has already sailed. (Irony: my phone autocorrected that to "failed". How true.) Nonetheless, I don't oppose this policy. If we truly want to get rid of NAT and eliminate "unreasonable" renumbering costs , there can logically be no needs testing at all. Renumbering even a 10-person office would be an unreasonable expense to me. I don't feel strongly about this, but the individual points the policy considers *are* valid. Here, have another bucket of popcorn... -Adam On June 23, 2015 7:25:06 PM CDT, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote: >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 >> Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments >> > >I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite >easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was >fully supportive until I got to "many smaller enterprises are unlikely >to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition >for >most users given current cost/benefit)". Since there's still major >barriers to deploying IPv6, despite this being over a decade since it >should have happened, the amount of popcorn I am able to consume as an >observer over the next few years if smaller enterprises find even more >reasons to not adopt v6 (such as the one this policy wishes to correct) > >is vastly increased. I like popcorn, and so I'm opposed on that basis >alone. > >Matthew Kaufman >matthew at eeph.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. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me Tue Jun 23 20:49:05 2015 From: ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me (ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:49:05 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <5589F8E2.2040001@matthew.at> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> <5589F8E2.2040001@matthew.at> Message-ID: <013301d0ae17$9312d470$b9387d50$@giesen.me> I presume that was in jest, but just like to confirm if you have a legitimate beef with this draft policy. Cheers, GTG -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman Sent: June-23-15 8:25 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote: > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was fully supportive until I got to "many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit)". Since there's still major barriers to deploying IPv6, despite this being over a decade since it should have happened, the amount of popcorn I am able to consume as an observer over the next few years if smaller enterprises find even more reasons to not adopt v6 (such as the one this policy wishes to correct) is vastly increased. I like popcorn, and so I'm opposed on that basis alone. Matthew Kaufman matthew at eeph.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. From michael at linuxmagic.com Tue Jun 23 20:56:27 2015 From: michael at linuxmagic.com (Michael Peddemors) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:56:27 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC56.8000004@arin.net> <5589F7E6.2070804@matthew.at> Message-ID: <558A003B.1020804@linuxmagic.com> Opposed. On 15-06-23 05:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I am opposed to this proposal. > > It is yet another attempt to chip away at needs basis by those seeking > to provide for unlimited and unrestricted transfers. > > The community has repeatedly indicated that the preservation of needs > basis is important and virtually every proposal > seeking to eliminate it has been rebuffed by the community. > > This proposal should, IMHO, be recognized for what it is? A clear effort > to reduce the needs-basis requirements for transfers. > > Owen > >> On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:31 , Scott Leibrand > > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Kaufman > > wrote: >> >> On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7 >> Simplified requirements for demonstrated need for IPv4 transfers >> >> >> I support this policy, but would be even happier if we simply had >> a trigger that said "when ARIN is out of IPv4 addresses, this >> simplified policy replaces all other tests for IPv4 transfers and >> the other sections are inactive until such time as ARIN has a new >> large free pool of IPv4 addresses (never)" >> >> >> The main reason we didn't write a replacement for section 4 is this: >> >> Organizations that do not meet the simplified criteria above may >> instead demonstrate the need for number resources using the >> criteria in section 4 of the NRPM. >> >> >> There will likely be some sections of the community who feel that >> their particular need for IPv4 is better met under section 4 than >> under this simplified policy. Rather than trying to identify every >> such need and write in exceptions, I felt it would be better to first >> allow everyone using the transfer market to opt out of section 4 >> entirely, and then once we have some experience with which requests >> actually still end up using section 4, we will have some data on which >> parts of it we need to keep and which can be eliminated in a >> simplification cleanup proposal. >> >> -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. > -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. From ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me Tue Jun 23 21:01:42 2015 From: ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me (ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 21:01:42 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> <5589F8E2.2040001@matthew.at> Message-ID: <013b01d0ae19$568d7170$03a85450$@giesen.me> Adam, In an ideal world, I would like to offer address space to anyone who wants it. In reality, in drafting the original proposal (I am the author), I had to try to balance a number of factors: 1) Cost of end-user renumbering 2) Cost to everyone else to carry the prefix 3) Cost to everyone of lack of (or slow) adoption of IPv6 because users can?t get address space 4) Cost to everyone of technical hacks such as NPT In the end I hope the 13 site threshold (/40) - (which is based on 6.5.8.2) struck the right balance. They are the third tier in terms of allocation size (/48, /44, /40), so as to avoid unnecessarily polluting the routing table with every mom and pop shop, but small enough that organizations who would have genuine hardship without being able to get their own address space would be encouraged to adopt IPv6 rather than delay or implement technical hacks. Cheers, GTG From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Adam Thompson Sent: June-23-15 8:46 PM To: Matthew Kaufman; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments I'll point out that at my current employer, I cannot justify obtaining PI v6 space. So I've deployed ULA + NPT in order to guarantee uniqueness. I see IPv6 allocation making some of the same assumptions humans have made through time (e.g. "640k should be enough for anyone "), so I'm not sure I *should* be able to get PI space. NAT, NAT66, NPT, etc. are ubiquitous enough that anyone designing "pathological" protocols that rely on embedded IP addresses (e.g. FTP, SIP, et al.) should probably be taken out behind the shed and put out of their misery. Based on that, I disagree that ULA+NAT is harmful to the internet anymore. That ship has already sailed. (Irony: my phone autocorrected that to "failed". How true.) Nonetheless, I don't oppose this policy. If we truly want to get rid of NAT and eliminate "unreasonable" renumbering costs , there can logically be no needs testing at all. Renumbering even a 10-person office would be an unreasonable expense to me. I don't feel strongly about this, but the individual points the policy considers *are* valid. Here, have another bucket of popcorn... -Adam On June 23, 2015 7:25:06 PM CDT, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was fully supportive until I got to "many smaller enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for most users given current cost/benefit)". Since there's still major barriers to deploying IPv6, despite this being over a decade since it should have happened, the amount of popcorn I am able to consume as an observer over the next few years if smaller enterprises find even more reasons to not adopt v6 (such as the one this policy wishes to correct) < br />is vastly increased. I like popcorn, and so I'm opposed on that basis alone. Matthew Kaufman matthew at eeph.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. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael at linuxmagic.com Tue Jun 23 21:04:20 2015 From: michael at linuxmagic.com (Michael Peddemors) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:04:20 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558A0214.3000501@linuxmagic.com> On 15-06-23 02:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > If you have submitted a report in the last fourteen days, you should > hear back from us shortly. You are also welcome to contact us via our > telephone help-desk for status information. > > > 3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN > online? Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any > complainant has to provide contact info anyway! > > > Tickets submitted in ARIN Online are visible to other points of contact > associated with the same organization. We require users submit fraud > reports outside of ARIN Online for that reason. Even so, users should > still be able to submit information using the fraud reporting tool > without having to log out of ARIN Online. We will take a closer look to > make sure that is working. > This brings up a good and interesting point. Should the door be opened to discussions regarding letting 'fraud' reports be open to the public, including ARIN's progress and handling of such reports? Having an open nature to such reports, will ensure that there is no suspicion of reports being ignored, swept under the rug, or not handled in accordance with ARIN's policies and guidelines. -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. From ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me Tue Jun 23 21:08:30 2015 From: ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me (ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 21:08:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: <558A0214.3000501@linuxmagic.com> References: <558A0214.3000501@linuxmagic.com> Message-ID: <014f01d0ae1a$48c69160$da53b420$@giesen.me> I suspect that would be a legal nightmare. GTG -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Peddemors Sent: June-23-15 9:04 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question On 15-06-23 02:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > If you have submitted a report in the last fourteen days, you should > hear back from us shortly. You are also welcome to contact us via our > telephone help-desk for status information. > > > 3) why can't I submit a fraud report if I'm logged in to ARIN > online? Claiming it's about anonymity is questionable when any > complainant has to provide contact info anyway! > > > Tickets submitted in ARIN Online are visible to other points of > contact associated with the same organization. We require users submit > fraud reports outside of ARIN Online for that reason. Even so, users > should still be able to submit information using the fraud reporting > tool without having to log out of ARIN Online. We will take a closer > look to make sure that is working. > This brings up a good and interesting point. Should the door be opened to discussions regarding letting 'fraud' reports be open to the public, including ARIN's progress and handling of such reports? Having an open nature to such reports, will ensure that there is no suspicion of reports being ignored, swept under the rug, or not handled in accordance with ARIN's policies and guidelines. -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. _______________________________________________ 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 23 22:34:22 2015 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:34:22 -0300 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > Hello Adam, > > Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. > > We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the > past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through > this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have > resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the > denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued > resources. > According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further investigation. That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of ARIN-20140929-F1760. Some sort of additional resources like a FAQ on what might or might not be out of scope could help to reduce the amount of baseless submissions as well as additional questions on the form that if selected nack a report. If staff isn't going to keep the page updated why keep it at all? Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Jun 23 22:45:42 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:45:42 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson > wrote: > Hello Adam, > > Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. > > We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. > > According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further investigation. > > That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of ARIN-20140929-F1760. There?s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported. As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of fraud reports they receive are out of scope? General ISP complaints SPAM complaints etc. This is not surprising as probably about 1% of all internet users even know what an RIR is, let alone how to distinguish between RIR Fraud and other issues. > Some sort of additional resources like a FAQ on what might or might not be out of scope could help to reduce the amount of baseless submissions as well as additional questions on the form that if selected nack a report. If staff isn't going to keep the page updated why keep it at all? On this we agree? The form letter I suggested should contain a link to this FAQ, as should the fraud report filing page. Owen > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjones at vt.edu Wed Jun 24 00:39:59 2015 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:39:59 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Owen's remarks. There?s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported. As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of fraud reports they receive are out of scope? General ISP complaints SPAM complaints etc. This is not surprising as probably about 1% of all internet users even know what an RIR is, let alone how to distinguish between RIR Fraud and other issues. -- Brian On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson > wrote: > >> Hello Adam, >> >> Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. >> >> We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the >> past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through >> this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have >> resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the >> denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued >> resources. >> > > According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further > investigation. > > That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless > to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to > be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of > ARIN-20140929-F1760. > > > There?s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. > > Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes > unreported. > > As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of > fraud reports they receive are out of scope? > > General ISP complaints > SPAM complaints > etc. > > This is not surprising as probably about 1% of all internet users even > know what an RIR is, let alone how to distinguish between RIR Fraud and > other issues. > > Some sort of additional resources like a FAQ on what might or might not be > out of scope could help to reduce the amount of baseless submissions as > well as additional questions on the form that if selected nack a report. If > staff isn't going to keep the page updated why keep it at all? > > > On this we agree? The form letter I suggested should contain a link to > this FAQ, as should the fraud report filing page. > > Owen > > > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 08:53:57 2015 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:53:57 -0300 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson > wrote: > >> Hello Adam, >> >> Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. >> >> We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the >> past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through >> this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have >> resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the >> denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued >> resources. >> > > According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further > investigation. > > That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless > to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to > be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of > ARIN-20140929-F1760. > > > There?s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. > > Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes > unreported. > That's possible, but I think this raises a question. What exactly is fraud? Generally, my guess is the only person who has any clue as to what a fraud is or if its been committed is the person filling out the application. The numbers are generally null because it's near undetectable other than a whistle blower coming forward. > > As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of > fraud reports they receive are out of scope? > > General ISP complaints > SPAM complaints > etc. > > This is not surprising as probably about 1% of all internet users even > know what an RIR is, let alone how to distinguish between RIR Fraud and > other issues. > Agreed. > > Some sort of additional resources like a FAQ on what might or might not be > out of scope could help to reduce the amount of baseless submissions as > well as additional questions on the form that if selected nack a report. If > staff isn't going to keep the page updated why keep it at all? > > > On this we agree? The form letter I suggested should contain a link to > this FAQ, as should the fraud report filing page. > > > That's seems more like an abuse like auto-responder which is easy to fire and forget. I'd like to see more eyes on the complaints, but an attempt to increase the quality of what they will put eyes to. Thanks, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jschiller at google.com Wed Jun 24 09:57:33 2015 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use In-Reply-To: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net> References: <5589BC3A.7000305@arin.net> Message-ID: The primary objection to this policy's successor was legal concerns surrounding the strength on the nexus to the region, liability to ARIN , and an inability to pursue legal redress (apologies if I didn't get that quite right). Does this policy mitigate those concerns? Is it possible to get an early legal assessment (noting the policy and the assessment may change prior the the next meeting)? Thanks, __Jason On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 > Out of region use > > On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-219 Out > of region use" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_5.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2015-5 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5 > Out of region use > > Date: 23 June 2015 > > Problem statement: > > Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out or region > use of ARIN registered resources. This has created confusion and > controversy within the ARIN community for some time. Earlier work on this > issue has explored several options to restrict or otherwise limit out of > region use. None of these options have gained consensus within the > community. The next logical option is a proposal that clearly permits out > of region use while addressing the key concerns expressed about unlimited > openness to out of region use and enables ARIN staff to implement the > policy efficiently. > > Policy statement: > > Create new Section X: > ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out > of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for additional > number resources if the applicant is currently using at least the > equivalent of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN service > region, respectively. In addition, the applicant must have a real and > substantial connection with the ARIN region, which the applicant shall be > responsible for proving. > > A real and substantial connection shall be defined as carrying on business > in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner, whether for or not for profit. > The determination as to whether an entity is carrying on business in the > ARIN region in a meaningful manner shall be made by ARIN. Simply being > incorporated in the ARIN region shall not be sufficient, on its own, to > prove that an entity is carrying on business in the ARIN region in a > meaningful manner. Methods that entities may consider using, including > cumulatively, to prove that they are carrying on business in the ARIN > region in a meaningful manner include: > ? Demonstrating a physical presence in the ARIN region through a > bricks and mortar location that is actually used for the purposes of > conducting business in the ARIN region in a meaningful manner. That is to > say, the location is not merely a registered office that serves no other > business purpose. > ? Demonstrating that the entity has staff in the ARIN region. The > greater the number of staff, the stronger this connecting factor is. > ? Demonstrating that the entity holds assets in the ARIN region. The > greater the asset value, the stronger this connecting factor is. > ? Demonstrating that the entity provides services to or solicits > sales from residents of the ARIN region. > ? Demonstrating that the entity holds annual meetings in the ARIN > region. > ? Demonstrating that the entity raises investment capital from > investors in the ARIN region. > ? Demonstrating that the entity has a registered office in the ARIN > region, although this factor on its own shall not be sufficient. > ? Any other method that the entity considers appropriate. > > The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN resources > that will be used out of region cannot also be used to justify resource > requests from another RIR. When a request for resources from ARIN is > justified by need located within another RIR's service region, the officer > of the applicant must attest that the same services and facilities have not > been used as the basis for a resource request in the other region(s). ARIN > reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's number > holdings in the region(s) of proposed use, but this should happen only when > there are significant reasons to suspect duplicate requests. > > Comments: > > a) Timetable for implementation: Various iterations of this policy > have been presented and debated by ARIN for well over a year now. Given the > amount of time that has already been spent on developing a policy, ideally, > this policy would be implemented as soon as possible. > > b) Explanation of draft policy: The draft policy addresses both the > problem statement as well as the concerns raised at ARIN 35 by participants > as well as ARIN counsel. > > Firstly, the draft policy addresses the concerns of ARIN counsel as well > as some of the participants at ARIN 35 by ensuring that anyone requesting > numbered resources from ARIN has a real and substantial connection with the > ARIN region. This should go a long way to addressing concerns about fraud, > legal liability, and interference with the jurisdiction of other RIRs. > > In addition, by placing the burden of proof for demonstrating a real and > substantial connection with the ARIN region on the applicant, the amount of > work required of ARIN staff to apply the policy will be reduced. > > The factors noted above are suggestions that an entity may use to > demonstrate to ARIN that it is carrying on business in the ARIN region in a > meaningful manner. These factors are all indicative, some more than others, > that an entity has a real and substantial connection to the ARIN region > through the carrying on of business in the ARIN region in a meaningful > manner. Not all of the factors will apply in a given case and proving a > single factor may not be enough to satisfy ARIN that an entity is carrying > on business in the region in a meaningful manner. The list of factors is > meant to be quite broad, including an open-ended factor, in order to > capture the diversity of businesses that operate in the ARIN region and > that may justifiably require numbered resources from ARIN. This approach is > very similar to the practical method that courts typically apply to assess > whether parties have a sufficient connection to a jurisdiction so as to > require them to submit themselves to the courts of that jurisdiction. > > This draft policy is a substantial improvement over the previous version > of ARIN-2014-1 in terms of reducing the overall risk to the community by > requiring a real and substantial connection between an entity requesting > resources and the ARIN region. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 24 11:51:48 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:51:48 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jun 24, 2015, at 05:53 , Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson > wrote: >> Hello Adam, >> >> Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. >> >> We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. >> >> According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further investigation. >> >> That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of ARIN-20140929-F1760. > > There?s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. > > Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported. > > > That's possible, but I think this raises a question. What exactly is fraud? Generally, my guess is the only person who has any clue as to what a fraud is or if its been committed is the person filling out the application. The numbers are generally null because it's near undetectable other than a whistle blower coming forward. I?ll let ARIN staff give the definitive answer, but my understanding (which may not be 100% correct but should be relatively close) is addresses obtained or held in a manner inconsistent with the policies stated in the NRPM and/or in violation of the RSA. > On this we agree? The form letter I suggested should contain a link to this FAQ, as should the fraud report filing page. > > > > That's seems more like an abuse like auto-responder which is easy to fire and forget. I'd like to see more eyes on the complaints, but an attempt to increase the quality of what they will put eyes to. No, I?m specifically not suggesting an auto-responder. I?m suggesting a form letter where once the eyeballs have determined the complaint is out of scope, they don?t spend a bunch of time composing a message that may or may not be 100% correct, they pull up the stock message, maybe add a couple of details relevant to why this specific report was considered out of scope, and then send it off to the requestor. It shouldn?t be automatically sent to every requestor. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Wed Jun 24 13:06:34 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:06:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] =?utf-8?q?NRPM_2015=2E2_=E2=80=93_New_Policy_Implemen?= =?utf-8?q?ted_=28ARIN-2014-17=29?= Message-ID: <558AE39A.3060200@arin.net> On 13 April 2015 the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following number policy: ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_17.html A new version of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has been published to the ARIN website. NRPM version 2015.2 is effective 24 June 2015 and supersedes the previous version. NRPM version 2015.2 also included an update to the private AS number range in Section 5. The NRPM is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Board minutes are available at: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html Draft policies and proposals are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From bill at herrin.us Wed Jun 24 17:16:21 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:16:21 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, ARIN wrote: > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices > directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for > the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting one of > the following criteria: > > a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one > of its predecessor registries, or; > b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed > and using an assigned valid global AS number, or; > c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 > addresses within 12 months, or; > d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets > within 12 months, or; > e. By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; > f. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 > addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. I see little difference I see between this policy and simply saying that anyone willing to pay the fee for a /48 can have one. The only notable difference is that under this policy a registrant may wish to first hire a consultant sufficiently steeped in ARIN policy language to properly phrase and exhibit his supporting documentation. I approve of this and SUPPORT the draft as written. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From ggiesen at giesen.me Thu Jun 25 05:59:57 2015 From: ggiesen at giesen.me (Gary T. Giesen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:59:57 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments Message-ID: Bill, While I appreciate your support of this policy, I'm a little confused about your statement as this policy doesn't even deal with allocations of a single /48. In fact, the current smallest prefix this policy deals with would be a /40 (13 sites qualifies for a /40 - and in fact that number was deliberately chosen because of that). Cheers, GTG Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: William Herrin Date: 2015-06-24 17:16 (GMT-05:00) To: Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, ARIN wrote: > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices > directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for > the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting one of > the following criteria: > > a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one > of its predecessor registries, or; > b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed > and using an assigned valid global AS number, or; > c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 > addresses within 12 months, or; > d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets > within 12 months, or; > e. By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; > f. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 > addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. I see little difference I see between this policy and simply saying that anyone willing to pay the fee for a /48 can have one. The only notable difference is that under this policy a registrant may wish to first hire a consultant sufficiently steeped in ARIN policy language to properly phrase and exhibit his supporting documentation. I approve of this and SUPPORT the draft as written. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Jun 25 08:43:27 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:43:27 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote: > While I appreciate your support of this policy, I'm a little confused about > your statement as this policy doesn't even deal with allocations of a single > /48. In fact, the current smallest prefix this policy deals with would be a > /40 (13 sites qualifies for a /40 - and in fact that number was deliberately > chosen because of that). Hi Gary, Criteria a, b or f all justify a /48 according to NRPM 6.5.8.2 which is not modified by this policy. It's not obvious to me why c or d would necessarily qualify for more than a /48. E justifies a /40, as you said. I see what you're saying, you're only adding section E. Man, that's a really confusing way to write a policy change. The reader has to really dig to see what you're changing. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 25 09:14:32 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:14:32 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, ARIN wrote: > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments On second thought, I withdraw my support and oppose the policy draft as written. While I approve of the policy in concept, the draft commits two errors which should be rectified before it goes to the board: First, it "replaces" large sections of text to which there is no obvious modification. This lacks clarity, making it needlessly difficult to understand what the draft actually changes. The draft should be winnowed to just the text which changes. Second, it renumbers existing 6.5.8.1e to 6.5.8.1f and then replaces 6.5.8.1e with text which is not derivative of the original. This is bad practice, as it confuses external references to the NRPM. Indeed, ARIN's normal practice has been to retire rather than replace or reorder section numbers which no longer serve their original function. With those two changes made, I believe I would support the draft. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From andrew.dul at quark.net Thu Jun 25 11:54:51 2015 From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:54:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> Message-ID: <558C244B.7060202@quark.net> On 6/25/2015 6:14 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, ARIN wrote: >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 >> Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > On second thought, I withdraw my support and oppose the policy draft > as written. While I approve of the policy in concept, the draft > commits two errors which should be rectified before it goes to the > board: > > First, it "replaces" large sections of text to which there is no > obvious modification. This lacks clarity, making it needlessly > difficult to understand what the draft actually changes. The draft > should be winnowed to just the text which changes. > > Second, it renumbers existing 6.5.8.1e to 6.5.8.1f and then replaces > 6.5.8.1e with text which is not derivative of the original. This is > bad practice, as it confuses external references to the NRPM. Indeed, > ARIN's normal practice has been to retire rather than replace or > reorder section numbers which no longer serve their original function. > > With those two changes made, I believe I would support the draft. > > Just so I understand you are opposed to the 'editorial' way the policy was written, not the content of the actual changes? Andrew From bill at herrin.us Thu Jun 25 12:08:14 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:08:14 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <558C244B.7060202@quark.net> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> <558C244B.7060202@quark.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Andrew Dul wrote: > Just so I understand you are opposed to the 'editorial' way the policy > was written, not the content of the actual changes? Well, that's kinda the crux of it. I don't think I'm opposed to the changes but to be sure I'd have to pull out the text and do a bunch of diffs to make sure I correctly understand what the changes are. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From rjletts at uw.edu Thu Jun 25 14:32:04 2015 From: rjletts at uw.edu (Richard J. Letts) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:32:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> Message-ID: I still do not think the problem statement is a real issue. If you have Multiple Discrete Networks (using the IPv4 terminology) then that would seem to me be reason enough to apply for space under 6.5.8.1(e) i.e. given a geographically dispersed location then that seems reasonable to need separate space for each. Has ARIN actually denied space for this reason? Why if I have ULA do I also need to have NAT66? Why can't the workstations have a ULA address for internal communications, and a provider-provided IPv6 address for global internet conversations that changes with ISP? It seems that this argument is predicated on how IPv4 has been traditionally deployed. With IPv6 I thought it was the expectation that a node would HAVE multiple IPv6 addresses assigned and would choose dynamically the most appropriate source address (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6724). As an example my own IPv6-enabled desktop currently has six IPv6 addresses as a result of recent network changes here -- I have not yet had to renumber anything and nothing has stopped working during the transitions. I would have expected expect an organization would make use of ULA for internal-only services and establish VPN connections between disconnected networks. Changing providers would then only be a matter of updating the VPN tunnels linking these ULA networks. You will then be assured your inter-site traffic is encrypted, and there is no requirement to renumber your ULA services if you change IPv6 providers. Yes, you would have to renumber any public services, but this is the same problem you have with IPv4 (and if you have multiple locations providing publically accessible services then surely the MDN-equivalency of 6.5.8.1(e) would apply)? Richard Letts > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On > Behalf Of ARIN > Sent: 23 June 2015 1:07 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to > Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended > ARIN-2015-1 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. > > ARIN-2015-1 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html > > You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-1 on the PPML prior to the > ARIN Public Policy Consultation at ARIN 36 in Montreal in October 2015. > Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be used by the > ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus for adopting > this as policy. > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > Date: 23 June 2015 > > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > Resource Policy: > > ARIN-2015-1 enables fair and impartial number resource administration by > providing a concrete threshold (13 active sites) under which end-user > organizations who have a large number of potentially geographically > dispersed sites, or sites with low subnet and/or user counts, can be > reasonably assured of receiving IPv6 address space from ARIN. This > proposal is technically sound, in that it retains reasonable thresholds on > obtaining IPv6 assignments from ARIN in order to support the aggregation > of Internet number resources in a hierarchical manner to the extent > feasible. It has been well supported by the community on PPML and at the > ARIN PPC at NANOG in San Francisco, where nearly everyone agreed that this > was a step in the right direction. To the extent that some in the > community desire even more relaxed IPv6 assignment policy, the AC > encourages those community members to discuss on PPML and/or submit as > additional policy proposals any further changes they would like to see. > > Problem Statement: > > Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users whose > costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is designed to > mitigate. > > Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering per > NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: > > c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 > addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active > use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; > > These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a large > number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low > subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class of end user > would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. are designed to > mitigate. > > While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) under > 6.5.8.1 e. ("By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating > why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable"), it fails to > provide a concrete threshold under which this class of end-user can be > reasonably assured of receiving address space. > > Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number resource > continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller enterprises are > unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous > proposition for most users given current cost/benefit); or are likely to > adopt technical measures (such as using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are > widely held to be damaging to the IPv6 Internet. > > Policy Statement: > > Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: > > 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria > > Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices > directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for > the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting one of > the following criteria: > > a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one > of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or > immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS > number, or; c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of > 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that > makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. > By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical justification > indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. > > Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR may > be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: > > > An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety > or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment based > on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected impact > than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would > include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power or > energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management and > control, etc. > > Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization > can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect 2000 or > more individuals either internal or external to the organization. > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can > justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for guaranteed > uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by ULA (see RFC > 4193). > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such as > a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they > require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS. > > Comments: > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. General Comments: > > - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and > insert a new subsection e. with the following text: > > "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; > > - The threshold of 13 sites was chosen based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which > specifies 13 sites as the minimum number of sites required to receive a > /40 initial assignment, to attempt to provide a balance between the costs > of carrying the prefix vs. the costs to the end-user in renumbering. > > - Further constraints were added in that the sites must be in a contiguous > network, to further attempt to reduce the costs of carrying the prefix > > - By introducing this new threshold, we attempt to restore equivalency of > number resources for those end-users whose economic costs to renumber are > equal to that of other end-users who would qualify for a direct assignment > under 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > > c. Example: > > Example of an end-user who would not qualify under 6.5.8.2 c. or d.: > > - 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent > - 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) > - 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) > - 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) > - Not multihomed > - Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT > > This end-user only benefits minimally from IPv6 multihoming as they are > using an IPVPN, and multihoming provides benefit only for Internet > transit, not within their IPVPN. As such requiring the end-user to > multihome under NRPM 6.5.8.2 b. is wasteful. > > This end user currently uses RFC1918 IPv4 address space + a relatively > small amount of IPv4 GUA + NAT (currently accepted industry practice for > IPv4). Changing providers involves only renumbering the small amount of > IPv4 GUA. Forcing the end-user to acquire an IPv4 direct assignment under > NRPM 6.5.8.2 a. in order to be able to get a direct IPv6 assignment is > incredibly wasteful of a valuable and limited number resource. It also > forces the customer occupy more routing table space, as now an IPv4 PI > prefix must be routed in addition to an IPv6 PI prefix, instead of using > IPv4 PA + IPv6 PI (where only space for an IPv6 PI prefix is required). > > ##### > > ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html > > Date of Assessment: June 11, 2015 > > ___ > 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) > This proposal would add a criteria item to 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment > Criteria). Because each of the existing criteria items in that section can > independently qualify an organization for IPv6 address space from ARIN, > this new criteria item adds an additional qualification criteria. > It makes it easier for some organizations to qualify, and does not make it > more difficult for anyone. In particular, it creates a new criteria point > that allows any end-user organization large enough to have 13 sites to > immediately qualify for IPv6 address space from ARIN. > > ___ > 2. Comments > A. ARIN Staff Comments > This proposal can be implemented as written. Minimal staff training and > preparation would be needed to implement this if it were to become policy. > We see no negative impacts. > > B. ARIN General Counsel ? Legal Assessment Counsel sees no material legal > issues in this policy. > > ___ > 3. Resource Impact > This policy would require minimal staff training and preparation. We see > no negative impacts. > > ___ > 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > Date: 24 March 2015 > > Problem Statement: > Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users whose > costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is designed to > mitigate. > > Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering per > NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: > > c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 > addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active > use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; > > These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a large > number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low > subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class of end user > would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. are designed to > mitigate. > > While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) under > 6.5.8.1 e. ("By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating > why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable"), it fails to > provide a concrete threshold under which this class of end-user can be > reasonably assured of receiving address space. > > Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number resource > continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller enterprises are > unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous > proposition for most users given current cost/benefit); or are likely to > adopt technical measures (such as using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are > widely held to be damaging to the IPv6 Internet. > > Policy Statement: > > Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: > > 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria > > Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices > directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for > the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by meeting one of > the following criteria: > > a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one > of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or > immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS > number, or; c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of > 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that > makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. > By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical justification > indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. > > Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR may > be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: > > > An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety > or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment based > on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected impact > than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would > include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power or > energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management and > control, etc. > > Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization > can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect 2000 or > more individuals either internal or external to the organization. > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can > justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for guaranteed > uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by ULA (see RFC > 4193). > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such as > a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they > require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS. > > Comments: > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. General Comments: > > - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and > insert a new subsection e. with the following text: > > "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; > > - The threshold of 13 sites was chosen based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which > specifies 13 sites as the minimum number of sites required to receive a > /40 initial assignment, to attempt to provide a balance between the costs > of carrying the prefix vs. the costs to the end-user in renumbering. > > - Further constraints were added in that the sites must be in a contiguous > network, to further attempt to reduce the costs of carrying the prefix > > - By introducing this new threshold, we attempt to restore equivalency of > number resources for those end-users whose economic costs to renumber are > equal to that of other end-users who would qualify for a direct assignment > under 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > > c. Example: > > Example of an end-user who would not qualify under 6.5.8.2 c. or d.: > > - 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent > - 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) > - 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) > - 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) > - Not multihomed > - Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT > > This end-user only benefits minimally from IPv6 multihoming as they are > using an IPVPN, and multihoming provides benefit only for Internet > transit, not within their IPVPN. As such requiring the end-user to > multihome under NRPM 6.5.8.2 b. is wasteful. > > This end user currently uses RFC1918 IPv4 address space + a relatively > small amount of IPv4 GUA + NAT (currently accepted industry practice for > IPv4). Changing providers involves only renumbering the small amount of > IPv4 GUA. Forcing the end-user to acquire an IPv4 direct assignment under > NRPM 6.5.8.2 a. in order to be able to get a direct IPv6 assignment is > incredibly wasteful of a valuable and limited number resource. It also > forces the customer occupy more routing table space, as now an IPv4 PI > prefix must be routed in addition to an IPv6 PI prefix, instead of using > IPv4 PA + IPv6 PI (where only space for an IPv6 PI prefix is required). > _______________________________________________ > 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 narten at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 26 00:53:02 2015 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:53:02 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml@arin.net Message-ID: <201506260453.t5Q4r2BC023310@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Total of 54 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 26 00:53:02 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.67% | 9 | 12.64% | 69975 | matthew at matthew.at 16.67% | 9 | 10.70% | 59222 | bill at herrin.us 11.11% | 6 | 12.84% | 71112 | scottleibrand at gmail.com 11.11% | 6 | 12.71% | 70353 | owen at delong.com 11.11% | 6 | 10.31% | 57084 | info at arin.net 5.56% | 3 | 6.91% | 38267 | ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me 5.56% | 3 | 5.29% | 29303 | athompso at athompso.net 3.70% | 2 | 4.06% | 22462 | hannigan at gmail.com 1.85% | 1 | 5.00% | 27688 | rjletts at uw.edu 3.70% | 2 | 2.93% | 16198 | michael at linuxmagic.com 1.85% | 1 | 4.51% | 24955 | jschiller at google.com 1.85% | 1 | 2.93% | 16222 | bjones at vt.edu 1.85% | 1 | 2.48% | 13750 | ggiesen at giesen.me 1.85% | 1 | 2.40% | 13314 | richardj at arin.net 1.85% | 1 | 1.76% | 9772 | ndavis at arin.net 1.85% | 1 | 1.33% | 7374 | andrew.dul at quark.net 1.85% | 1 | 1.19% | 6604 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 54 |100.00% | 553655 | Total From ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me Fri Jun 26 01:19:15 2015 From: ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me (Gary T. Giesen) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 01:19:15 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> Message-ID: <009f01d0afcf$a5633de0$f029b9a0$@giesen.me> Richard They are not multiple discreet networks in the NRPM sense. It is expected to be a contiguous network with preferably a single announcement. If you change providers then you still have renumber dozens of sites. By comparison c. and d. could potentially be a single site, and the economic burden of renumbering was considered high enough that an allowance was made for those cases. I'd argue the economic burden of this case has the potential to be much, much higher. As for the numbering issue, there was is a note in the general comments section: b. General Comments: - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and insert a new subsection e. with the following text: "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites within 12 months, or;" I'm not particularly stuck on the reordering of the elements, the qualification can become f) for all I care, I just thought from a style standpoint it was cleaner to have all the explicit cases listed first and the catchall at the end. GTG -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts Sent: June-25-15 2:32 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments I still do not think the problem statement is a real issue. If you have Multiple Discrete Networks (using the IPv4 terminology) then that would seem to me be reason enough to apply for space under 6.5.8.1(e) i.e. given a geographically dispersed location then that seems reasonable to need separate space for each. Has ARIN actually denied space for this reason? Why if I have ULA do I also need to have NAT66? Why can't the workstations have a ULA address for internal communications, and a provider-provided IPv6 address for global internet conversations that changes with ISP? It seems that this argument is predicated on how IPv4 has been traditionally deployed. With IPv6 I thought it was the expectation that a node would HAVE multiple IPv6 addresses assigned and would choose dynamically the most appropriate source address (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6724). As an example my own IPv6-enabled desktop currently has six IPv6 addresses as a result of recent network changes here -- I have not yet had to renumber anything and nothing has stopped working during the transitions. I would have expected expect an organization would make use of ULA for internal-only services and establish VPN connections between disconnected networks. Changing providers would then only be a matter of updating the VPN tunnels linking these ULA networks. You will then be assured your inter-site traffic is encrypted, and there is no requirement to renumber your ULA services if you change IPv6 providers. Yes, you would have to renumber any public services, but this is the same problem you have with IPv4 (and if you have multiple locations providing publically accessible services then surely the MDN-equivalency of 6.5.8.1(e) would apply)? Richard Letts > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of ARIN > Sent: 23 June 2015 1:07 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended > ARIN-2015-1 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. > > ARIN-2015-1 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html > > You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-1 on the PPML prior to > the ARIN Public Policy Consultation at ARIN 36 in Montreal in October 2015. > Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be used by the > ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus for > adopting this as policy. > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > Date: 23 June 2015 > > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > Resource Policy: > > ARIN-2015-1 enables fair and impartial number resource administration > by providing a concrete threshold (13 active sites) under which > end-user organizations who have a large number of potentially > geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low subnet and/or user > counts, can be reasonably assured of receiving IPv6 address space from > ARIN. This proposal is technically sound, in that it retains > reasonable thresholds on obtaining IPv6 assignments from ARIN in order > to support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a > hierarchical manner to the extent feasible. It has been well supported > by the community on PPML and at the ARIN PPC at NANOG in San > Francisco, where nearly everyone agreed that this was a step in the > right direction. To the extent that some in the community desire even > more relaxed IPv6 assignment policy, the AC encourages those community > members to discuss on PPML and/or submit as additional policy proposals any further changes they would like to see. > > Problem Statement: > > Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users > whose costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is > designed to mitigate. > > Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering > per NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: > > c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 > addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes > active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; > > These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a > large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites > with low subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class > of end user would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > are designed to mitigate. > > While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) > under > 6.5.8.1 e. ("By providing a reasonable technical justification > indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are > unsuitable"), it fails to provide a concrete threshold under which > this class of end-user can be reasonably assured of receiving address space. > > Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number > resource continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller > enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an > already tenuous proposition for most users given current > cost/benefit); or are likely to adopt technical measures (such as > using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are widely held to be damaging to the IPv6 Internet. > > Policy Statement: > > Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: > > 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria > > Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices > directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent > for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by > meeting one of the following criteria: > > a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or > one of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 > Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an > assigned valid global AS number, or; c. By having a network that makes > active use of a minimum of > 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that > makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. > By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical > justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. > > Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR > may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: > > > An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety > or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment > based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected > impact than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would > include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power > or energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management > and control, etc. > > Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization > can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect > 2000 or more individuals either internal or external to the organization. > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can > justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for > guaranteed uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by > ULA (see RFC 4193). > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such > > as > a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they > require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS. > > Comments: > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. General Comments: > > - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and > insert a new subsection e. with the following text: > > "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; > > - The threshold of 13 sites was chosen based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which > specifies 13 sites as the minimum number of sites required to receive > a > /40 initial assignment, to attempt to provide a balance between the > costs of carrying the prefix vs. the costs to the end-user in renumbering. > > - Further constraints were added in that the sites must be in a > contiguous network, to further attempt to reduce the costs of carrying > the prefix > > - By introducing this new threshold, we attempt to restore equivalency > of number resources for those end-users whose economic costs to > renumber are equal to that of other end-users who would qualify for a > direct assignment under 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > > c. Example: > > Example of an end-user who would not qualify under 6.5.8.2 c. or d.: > > - 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent > - 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) > - 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) > - 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) > - Not multihomed > - Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT > > This end-user only benefits minimally from IPv6 multihoming as they > are using an IPVPN, and multihoming provides benefit only for Internet > transit, not within their IPVPN. As such requiring the end-user to > multihome under NRPM 6.5.8.2 b. is wasteful. > > This end user currently uses RFC1918 IPv4 address space + a relatively > small amount of IPv4 GUA + NAT (currently accepted industry practice > for IPv4). Changing providers involves only renumbering the small > amount of > IPv4 GUA. Forcing the end-user to acquire an IPv4 direct assignment > under NRPM 6.5.8.2 a. in order to be able to get a direct IPv6 > assignment is incredibly wasteful of a valuable and limited number > resource. It also forces the customer occupy more routing table space, > as now an IPv4 PI prefix must be routed in addition to an IPv6 PI > prefix, instead of using > IPv4 PA + IPv6 PI (where only space for an IPv6 PI prefix is required). > > ##### > > ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html > > Date of Assessment: June 11, 2015 > > ___ > 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) > This proposal would add a criteria item to 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment > Criteria). Because each of the existing criteria items in that section > can independently qualify an organization for IPv6 address space from > ARIN, this new criteria item adds an additional qualification criteria. > It makes it easier for some organizations to qualify, and does not > make it more difficult for anyone. In particular, it creates a new > criteria point that allows any end-user organization large enough to > have 13 sites to immediately qualify for IPv6 address space from ARIN. > > ___ > 2. Comments > A. ARIN Staff Comments > This proposal can be implemented as written. Minimal staff training > and preparation would be needed to implement this if it were to become policy. > We see no negative impacts. > > B. ARIN General Counsel ? Legal Assessment Counsel sees no material > legal issues in this policy. > > ___ > 3. Resource Impact > This policy would require minimal staff training and preparation. We > see no negative impacts. > > ___ > 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > Date: 24 March 2015 > > Problem Statement: > Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users > whose costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is > designed to mitigate. > > Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering > per NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: > > c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 > addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes > active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; > > These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a > large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites > with low subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class > of end user would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > are designed to mitigate. > > While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) > under > 6.5.8.1 e. ("By providing a reasonable technical justification > indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are > unsuitable"), it fails to provide a concrete threshold under which > this class of end-user can be reasonably assured of receiving address space. > > Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number > resource continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller > enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an > already tenuous proposition for most users given current > cost/benefit); or are likely to adopt technical measures (such as > using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are widely held to be damaging to the IPv6 Internet. > > Policy Statement: > > Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: > > 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria > > Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices > directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent > for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by > meeting one of the following criteria: > > a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or > one of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 > Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an > assigned valid global AS number, or; c. By having a network that makes > active use of a minimum of > 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that > makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. > By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical > justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. > > Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR > may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: > > > An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety > or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment > based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected > impact than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would > include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power > or energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management > and control, etc. > > Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization > can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect > 2000 or more individuals either internal or external to the organization. > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can > justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for > guaranteed uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by > ULA (see RFC 4193). > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such > > as > a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they > require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS. > > Comments: > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. General Comments: > > - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and > insert a new subsection e. with the following text: > > "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or; > > - The threshold of 13 sites was chosen based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which > specifies 13 sites as the minimum number of sites required to receive > a > /40 initial assignment, to attempt to provide a balance between the > costs of carrying the prefix vs. the costs to the end-user in renumbering. > > - Further constraints were added in that the sites must be in a > contiguous network, to further attempt to reduce the costs of carrying > the prefix > > - By introducing this new threshold, we attempt to restore equivalency > of number resources for those end-users whose economic costs to > renumber are equal to that of other end-users who would qualify for a > direct assignment under 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > > c. Example: > > Example of an end-user who would not qualify under 6.5.8.2 c. or d.: > > - 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent > - 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) > - 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) > - 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) > - Not multihomed > - Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT > > This end-user only benefits minimally from IPv6 multihoming as they > are using an IPVPN, and multihoming provides benefit only for Internet > transit, not within their IPVPN. As such requiring the end-user to > multihome under NRPM 6.5.8.2 b. is wasteful. > > This end user currently uses RFC1918 IPv4 address space + a relatively > small amount of IPv4 GUA + NAT (currently accepted industry practice > for IPv4). Changing providers involves only renumbering the small > amount of > IPv4 GUA. Forcing the end-user to acquire an IPv4 direct assignment > under NRPM 6.5.8.2 a. in order to be able to get a direct IPv6 > assignment is incredibly wasteful of a valuable and limited number > resource. It also forces the customer occupy more routing table space, > as now an IPv4 PI prefix must be routed in addition to an IPv6 PI > prefix, instead of using > IPv4 PA + IPv6 PI (where only space for an IPv6 PI prefix is required). > _______________________________________________ > 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 scottleibrand at gmail.com Fri Jun 26 01:55:02 2015 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:55:02 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <009f01d0afcf$a5633de0$f029b9a0$@giesen.me> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> <009f01d0afcf$a5633de0$f029b9a0$@giesen.me> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Gary T. Giesen < ggiesen+arin-ppml at giesen.me> wrote: > > > As for the numbering issue, there was is a note in the general comments > section: > > b. General Comments: > > - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and > insert a new subsection e. with the following text: > > "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > within 12 months, or;" > > > I'm not particularly stuck on the reordering of the elements, the > qualification can become f) for all I care, I just thought from a style > standpoint it was cleaner to have all the explicit cases listed first and > the catchall at the end. > As shepherd, I would be inclined to revise the policy statement so that it inserts e) and renumbers the current e) to f), rather than replacing the entire section as currently worded. Basically that would just mean promoting "b. General Comments:" to become the policy text. Bill, would that be sufficient for you, given the desire (for clarity) to have all the explicit cases listed first and the catchall at the end? Thanks, Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > > On Behalf Of ARIN > > Sent: 23 June 2015 1:07 PM > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: > > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > > > On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended > > ARIN-2015-1 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy. > > > > ARIN-2015-1 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html > > > > You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-1 on the PPML prior to > > the ARIN Public Policy Consultation at ARIN 36 in Montreal in October > 2015. > > Both the discussion on the list and at the meeting will be used by the > > ARIN Advisory Council to determine the community consensus for > > adopting this as policy. > > > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > > > Regards, > > > > Communications and Member Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > ## * ## > > > > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > > > Date: 23 June 2015 > > > > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > > Resource Policy: > > > > ARIN-2015-1 enables fair and impartial number resource administration > > by providing a concrete threshold (13 active sites) under which > > end-user organizations who have a large number of potentially > > geographically dispersed sites, or sites with low subnet and/or user > > counts, can be reasonably assured of receiving IPv6 address space from > > ARIN. This proposal is technically sound, in that it retains > > reasonable thresholds on obtaining IPv6 assignments from ARIN in order > > to support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a > > hierarchical manner to the extent feasible. It has been well supported > > by the community on PPML and at the ARIN PPC at NANOG in San > > Francisco, where nearly everyone agreed that this was a step in the > > right direction. To the extent that some in the community desire even > > more relaxed IPv6 assignment policy, the AC encourages those community > > members to discuss on PPML and/or submit as additional policy proposals > any further changes they would like to see. > > > > Problem Statement: > > > > Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users > > whose costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is > > designed to mitigate. > > > > Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering > > per NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: > > > > c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 > > addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes > > active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; > > > > These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a > > large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites > > with low subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class > > of end user would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > > are designed to mitigate. > > > > While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) > > under > > 6.5.8.1 e. ("By providing a reasonable technical justification > > indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are > > unsuitable"), it fails to provide a concrete threshold under which > > this class of end-user can be reasonably assured of receiving address > space. > > > > Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number > > resource continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller > > enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an > > already tenuous proposition for most users given current > > cost/benefit); or are likely to adopt technical measures (such as > > using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are widely held to be damaging to the > IPv6 Internet. > > > > Policy Statement: > > > > Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: > > > > 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria > > > > Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices > > directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent > > for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by > > meeting one of the following criteria: > > > > a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or > > one of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 > > Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an > > assigned valid global AS number, or; c. By having a network that makes > > active use of a minimum of > > 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that > > makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. > > By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > > within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical > > justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are > unsuitable. > > > > Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR > > may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: > > > > > An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety > > or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment > > based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected > > impact than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would > > include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power > > or energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management > > and control, etc. > > > Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization > > can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect > > 2000 or more individuals either internal or external to the organization. > > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can > > justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for > > guaranteed uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by > > ULA (see RFC 4193). > > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such > > > as > > a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they > > require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS. > > > > Comments: > > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. General Comments: > > > > - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and > > insert a new subsection e. with the following text: > > > > "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > > within 12 months, or; > > > > - The threshold of 13 sites was chosen based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which > > specifies 13 sites as the minimum number of sites required to receive > > a > > /40 initial assignment, to attempt to provide a balance between the > > costs of carrying the prefix vs. the costs to the end-user in > renumbering. > > > > - Further constraints were added in that the sites must be in a > > contiguous network, to further attempt to reduce the costs of carrying > > the prefix > > > > - By introducing this new threshold, we attempt to restore equivalency > > of number resources for those end-users whose economic costs to > > renumber are equal to that of other end-users who would qualify for a > > direct assignment under 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > > > > c. Example: > > > > Example of an end-user who would not qualify under 6.5.8.2 c. or d.: > > > > - 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent > > - 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) > > - 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) > > - 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) > > - Not multihomed > > - Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT > > > > This end-user only benefits minimally from IPv6 multihoming as they > > are using an IPVPN, and multihoming provides benefit only for Internet > > transit, not within their IPVPN. As such requiring the end-user to > > multihome under NRPM 6.5.8.2 b. is wasteful. > > > > This end user currently uses RFC1918 IPv4 address space + a relatively > > small amount of IPv4 GUA + NAT (currently accepted industry practice > > for IPv4). Changing providers involves only renumbering the small > > amount of > > IPv4 GUA. Forcing the end-user to acquire an IPv4 direct assignment > > under NRPM 6.5.8.2 a. in order to be able to get a direct IPv6 > > assignment is incredibly wasteful of a valuable and limited number > > resource. It also forces the customer occupy more routing table space, > > as now an IPv4 PI prefix must be routed in addition to an IPv6 PI > > prefix, instead of using > > IPv4 PA + IPv6 PI (where only space for an IPv6 PI prefix is required). > > > > ##### > > > > ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html > > > > Date of Assessment: June 11, 2015 > > > > ___ > > 1. Summary (Staff Understanding) > > This proposal would add a criteria item to 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment > > Criteria). Because each of the existing criteria items in that section > > can independently qualify an organization for IPv6 address space from > > ARIN, this new criteria item adds an additional qualification criteria. > > It makes it easier for some organizations to qualify, and does not > > make it more difficult for anyone. In particular, it creates a new > > criteria point that allows any end-user organization large enough to > > have 13 sites to immediately qualify for IPv6 address space from ARIN. > > > > ___ > > 2. Comments > > A. ARIN Staff Comments > > This proposal can be implemented as written. Minimal staff training > > and preparation would be needed to implement this if it were to become > policy. > > We see no negative impacts. > > > > B. ARIN General Counsel ? Legal Assessment Counsel sees no material > > legal issues in this policy. > > > > ___ > > 3. Resource Impact > > This policy would require minimal staff training and preparation. We > > see no negative impacts. > > > > ___ > > 4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 > > Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments > > > > Date: 24 March 2015 > > > > Problem Statement: > > Current policy for assignment to end users excludes a class of users > > whose costs to renumber would far exceed what current policy is > > designed to mitigate. > > > > Current measures designed to minimize the economic cost of renumbering > > per NRPM 6.5.8.1 (Initial Assignment Criteria) are: > > > > c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 > > addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes > > active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; > > > > These two measures fail to take into account end users who have a > > large number of potentially geographically dispersed sites, or sites > > with low subnet and/or user counts. The economic costs for this class > > of end user would likely far exceed the costs that 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > > are designed to mitigate. > > > > While an end user could possibly apply (and receive an assignment) > > under > > 6.5.8.1 e. ("By providing a reasonable technical justification > > indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are > > unsuitable"), it fails to provide a concrete threshold under which > > this class of end-user can be reasonably assured of receiving address > space. > > > > Without having the reasonable assurance of IPv6 address number > > resource continuity that a direct assignment allows, many smaller > > enterprises are unlikely to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an > > already tenuous proposition for most users given current > > cost/benefit); or are likely to adopt technical measures (such as > > using ULA addressing + NAT66) that are widely held to be damaging to the > IPv6 Internet. > > > > Policy Statement: > > > > Replace the contents of NRPM 6.5.8.1 with: > > > > 6.5.8.1. Initial Assignment Criteria > > > > Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices > > directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent > > for the addresses to begin operational use within 12 months, by > > meeting one of the following criteria: > > > > a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or > > one of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 > > Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an > > assigned valid global AS number, or; c. By having a network that makes > > active use of a minimum of > > 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that > > makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. > > By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > > within 12 months, or; f. By providing a reasonable technical > > justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are > unsuitable. > > > > Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR > > may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to: > > > > > An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety > > or the functioning of society can justify the need for an assignment > > based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected > > impact than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would > > include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power > > or energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management > > and control, etc. > > > Regardless of the number of hosts directly involved, an organization > > can justify the need for an assignment if renumbering would affect > > 2000 or more individuals either internal or external to the organization. > > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet can > > justify the need for an assignment by documenting a need for > > guaranteed uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness provided by > > ULA (see RFC 4193). > > > An organization with a network not connected to the Internet, such > > > as > > a VPN overlay network, can justify the need for an assignment if they > > require authoritative delegation of reverse DNS. > > > > Comments: > > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. General Comments: > > > > - Changes to NRPM 6.5.8.1 are to renumber subsection e. to f. and and > > insert a new subsection e. with the following text: > > > > "By having a contiguous network that has a minimum of 13 active sites > > within 12 months, or; > > > > - The threshold of 13 sites was chosen based on NRPM 6.5.8.2, which > > specifies 13 sites as the minimum number of sites required to receive > > a > > /40 initial assignment, to attempt to provide a balance between the > > costs of carrying the prefix vs. the costs to the end-user in > renumbering. > > > > - Further constraints were added in that the sites must be in a > > contiguous network, to further attempt to reduce the costs of carrying > > the prefix > > > > - By introducing this new threshold, we attempt to restore equivalency > > of number resources for those end-users whose economic costs to > > renumber are equal to that of other end-users who would qualify for a > > direct assignment under 6.5.8.1 c. and d. > > > > c. Example: > > > > Example of an end-user who would not qualify under 6.5.8.2 c. or d.: > > > > - 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent > > - 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) > > - 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) > > - 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) > > - Not multihomed > > - Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT > > > > This end-user only benefits minimally from IPv6 multihoming as they > > are using an IPVPN, and multihoming provides benefit only for Internet > > transit, not within their IPVPN. As such requiring the end-user to > > multihome under NRPM 6.5.8.2 b. is wasteful. > > > > This end user currently uses RFC1918 IPv4 address space + a relatively > > small amount of IPv4 GUA + NAT (currently accepted industry practice > > for IPv4). Changing providers involves only renumbering the small > > amount of > > IPv4 GUA. Forcing the end-user to acquire an IPv4 direct assignment > > under NRPM 6.5.8.2 a. in order to be able to get a direct IPv6 > > assignment is incredibly wasteful of a valuable and limited number > > resource. It also forces the customer occupy more routing table space, > > as now an IPv4 PI prefix must be routed in addition to an IPv6 PI > > prefix, instead of using > > IPv4 PA + IPv6 PI (where only space for an IPv6 PI prefix is required). > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pauldotwall at gmail.com Fri Jun 26 11:07:47 2015 From: pauldotwall at gmail.com (Paul WALL) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:07:47 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Today's Supreme Court ruling Message-ID: I hear the Supreme Court just ruled IPv6 legal in all states... What does this mean for the backward people who have been steadily resisting deploying the current version of the Internet Protocol? Drive Slow, Paul From michael at linuxmagic.com Fri Jun 26 11:18:31 2015 From: michael at linuxmagic.com (Michael Peddemors) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:18:31 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Today's Supreme Court ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558D6D47.8030209@linuxmagic.com> On 15-06-26 08:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > I hear the Supreme Court just ruled IPv6 legal in all states... > > What does this mean for the backward people who have been steadily > resisting deploying the current version of the Internet Protocol? > > Drive Slow, > > Paul Too late, we are deploying IPv8, twice as fast as IPv4 -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Jun 26 12:28:43 2015 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:28:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Today's Supreme Court ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558D7DBB.8070704@ipinc.net> Didn't know SCOTUS had jurisdiction outside the United States.... Ted On 6/26/2015 8:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote: > I hear the Supreme Court just ruled IPv6 legal in all states... > > What does this mean for the backward people who have been steadily > resisting deploying the current version of the Internet Protocol? > > Drive Slow, > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jun 26 17:41:11 2015 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:41:11 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Board adopted new number policies (2014-6 and 2014-21) Message-ID: <558DC6F7.4000305@arin.net> On 10 June 2015 the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted the following number policy: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4 These new number policies will be implemented no later than 31 July 2015. This is in accordance with the staff assessment that rated the resource impact of them as minimal, requiring three months to implement. 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 bill at herrin.us Fri Jun 26 18:22:29 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:22:29 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> <009f01d0afcf$a5633de0$f029b9a0$@giesen.me> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > As shepherd, I would be inclined to revise the policy statement so that it > inserts e) and renumbers the current e) to f), rather than replacing the > entire section as currently worded. Basically that would just mean > promoting "b. General Comments:" to become the policy text. > > Bill, would that be sufficient for you, given the desire (for clarity) to > have all the explicit cases listed first and the catchall at the end? Hi Scott, I think there's sound reasoning for the catchall to come last. Maybe ask staff for advice? Reordering is generally a bad thing for this sort of document, but every rule has its exceptions. If staff concurs that reordering here is the optimal choice, I'd be satisfied. Maybe there's a third way we're not seeing, like retiring e, adding the new element as f, and then re-inserting the catchall some other way, point g or as a sentence that follows the ordered list. Regards, Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 26 18:25:41 2015 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:25:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> <009f01d0afcf$a5633de0$f029b9a0$@giesen.me> Message-ID: <0BB2C211-E144-4FCF-877E-70A7843240A8@delong.com> Are we really going to spend this much time rethinking bullet points? Move e to f, insert new e, move on. This is not a complicated proposal. It makes sense. I agree it is clearer as a diff with an attached redline than as a full replacement text. Beyond that, let?s leave it alone and move it forward. Owen > On Jun 26, 2015, at 15:22 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> As shepherd, I would be inclined to revise the policy statement so that it >> inserts e) and renumbers the current e) to f), rather than replacing the >> entire section as currently worded. Basically that would just mean >> promoting "b. General Comments:" to become the policy text. >> >> Bill, would that be sufficient for you, given the desire (for clarity) to >> have all the explicit cases listed first and the catchall at the end? > > Hi Scott, > > I think there's sound reasoning for the catchall to come last. Maybe > ask staff for advice? Reordering is generally a bad thing for this > sort of document, but every rule has its exceptions. If staff concurs > that reordering here is the optimal choice, I'd be satisfied. > > Maybe there's a third way we're not seeing, like retiring e, adding > the new element as f, and then re-inserting the catchall some other > way, point g or as a sentence that follows the ordered list. > > Regards, > Bill > > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > _______________________________________________ > 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 26 18:31:36 2015 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:31:36 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments In-Reply-To: <0BB2C211-E144-4FCF-877E-70A7843240A8@delong.com> References: <5589BC64.3070102@arin.net> <009f01d0afcf$a5633de0$f029b9a0$@giesen.me> <0BB2C211-E144-4FCF-877E-70A7843240A8@delong.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Are we really going to spend this much time rethinking bullet points? What better opportunity will you have to learn how to write a policy draft _well_ than with one which is inoffensive? The knowledge and skill gained can serve you even with policy drafts which engender strong dissent. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From rs-lists at seastrom.com Mon Jun 29 07:46:06 2015 From: rs-lists at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:46:06 -0400 Subject: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Fraud reporting question References: <4A78D18B-0E36-41D4-B386-8D6373B1DA43@rs.hmail.seastrom.com> Message-ID: Looks like I managed to send this on Thursday from the wrong address. Oops. Begin forwarded message: > From: Robert Seastrom > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question > Date: June 24, 2015 at 1:34:20 PM EDT > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: Martin Hannigan , "ppml at arin.net" > > > On Jun 24, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> On Jun 24, 2015, at 05:53 , Martin Hannigan wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson wrote: >>>> Hello Adam, >>>> >>>> Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. >>>> >>>> We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued resources. >>>> >>>> According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further investigation. >>>> >>>> That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of ARIN-20140929-F1760. >>> >>> There?s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. >>> >>> Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported. >>> >>> That's possible, but I think this raises a question. What exactly is fraud? Generally, my guess is the only person who has any clue as to what a fraud is or if its been committed is the person filling out the application. The numbers are generally null because it's near undetectable other than a whistle blower coming forward. >> >> I?ll let ARIN staff give the definitive answer, but my understanding (which may not be 100% correct but should be relatively close) is addresses obtained or held in a manner inconsistent with the policies stated in the NRPM and/or in violation of the RSA. > > I can't speak to mail received at the fraud reporting address, however I can speak to the mailing list AUP address since I've served on the AUP committee. > > During my tenure, the vast majority of complaints received at the AUP address are from individuals who have mistaken ARIN for the Internet Police. Complaints about spam, firewall alerts, or similar such things were the order of the day. In-scope complaints about individuals' conduct on the list were the rare exception. > > It would certainly not surprise me if the 98% of "fraud reports" contain a lot of that sort of thing. It's hard to produce meaningful statistics against such a high-noise source; allowing complaints that are out of scope to not be counted at all would be a defeat for transparency. At the same time, publishing an unexpurgated archive of all the complaints has its own set of concerns. > > -r > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: