ARIN-PPML Archive

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Mike Burns — 2013-06-19T14:30:06Z

lol. An Amen and two shut-ups!
OK, I’ll shut up.

From: Chris James
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:19 PM
To: Sweeting, John
Cc: John Curran ; Mike Burns ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Agreed.

Chris James
Datacate Inc.
2999 Gold Canal Dr.
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
916-526-0737 o.
916-668-5851 d.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Sweeting, John wrote:

Hi,

If possible could we move this to a private conversation? This has all been aired on PPML several times before and at this point it serves no purpose. If we could please get back on track and focus on a current draft policy or proposal and state reasons for support or non support it would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
John

From: John Curran
Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:12 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" , Mike Burns
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

You may say "legally purchasing" rights, but I truly don't know what these parties think
they purchased, since it can't be the ability to inject routes and have them accepted
(no one can provide that) nor the right to use the entry in the registry, when the
circumstances are contrary to policy.

I guess they figure they are buying what the Nortel bankruptcy judge called the “exclusive right to use” the addresses.

Indeed, but those are rights which may be transferred in accordance with policy. In the case
of Nortel, this was accomplished by ARIN working with Microsoft and confirming compliance
and then removing our objection, a point which Nortel's own filing makes - "10. Second, the
revisions reflected in the Amended Sale Agreement and Revised Order were the result of
negotiations between Microsoft, ARIN and NNI and, accordingly, ARIN’s counsel has
informed NNI that it does not oppose entry of the Revised Order. "

No problem buying the rights (that is, after all, what a transfer is) but you also have to wait
for the approval before considering the deal "closed", just as in the Nortel case.

Consider if the buyer of the radio station could begin and continue broadcasting without regard to regulatory approval?
Does that make a listener un-hear a broadcast? Or would the incentives lead to lots of wildcat radio stations pending approval?

The safest move is to finalize the sale upon the approval; claiming that it is complete prior
to that point is rather innovative (and might even be considered fraud if done knowingly...)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

_______________________________________________
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.

Confidentiality Note:
The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments, if any, are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. If you are not the named addressee, or if you believe this message has been addressed to you in error, you are requested not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this information. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail. It is also requested that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Thank You.

© 2013 Technicate Solutions Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

John Curran — 2013-06-19T14:23:28Z

On Jun 19, 2013, at 1:16 PM, "Sweeting, John" > wrote:

Hi,

If possible could we move this to a private conversation? This has all been aired on PPML several times before and at this point it serves no purpose. If we could please get back on track and focus on a current draft policy or proposal and state reasons for support or non support it would be very much appreciated.

John -

Excellent idea - I just needed to clarify that "accuracy of the registry" is probably a little
more complex that the phrase appears on the surface. At long as folks realize that it
is not necessarily an accuracy issue as much as an "ease of use of the registry" issue,
that will suffice. I believe that the recent conversation has made that clear for purposes
of further consideration of the draft policy.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Chris James — 2013-06-19T14:19:33Z

Agreed.

Chris James
Datacate Inc.
2999 Gold Canal Dr.
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
916-526-0737 o.
916-668-5851 d.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Sweeting, John
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If possible could we move this to a private conversation? This has all
> been aired on PPML several times before and at this point it serves no
> purpose. If we could please get back on track and focus on a current draft
> policy or proposal and state reasons for support or non support it would be
> very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
>
> From: John Curran
> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:12 PM
> To: Mike Burns
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" , Mike Burns <
> mike at iptrading.com>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition
> ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> You may say "legally purchasing" rights, but I truly don't know
> what these parties think
> they purchased, since it can't be the ability to inject routes and have
> them accepted
> (no one can provide that) nor the right to use the entry in the
> registry, when the
> circumstances are contrary to policy.
>
>
> I guess they figure they are buying what the Nortel bankruptcy judge
> called the “exclusive right to use” the addresses.
>
>
> Indeed, but those are rights which may be transferred in accordance with
> policy. In the case
> of Nortel, this was accomplished by ARIN working with Microsoft and
> confirming compliance
> and then removing our objection, a point which Nortel's own filing makes -
> "10. Second, the
> revisions reflected in the Amended Sale Agreement and Revised Order were
> the result of
> negotiations between Microsoft, ARIN and NNI and, accordingly, ARIN’s
> counsel has
> informed NNI that it does not oppose entry of the Revised Order. " > Docket #5280>
>
> No problem buying the rights (that is, after all, what a transfer is)
> but you also have to wait
> for the approval before considering the deal "closed", just as in the
> Nortel case.
>
>
> Consider if the buyer of the radio station could begin and continue
> broadcasting without regard to regulatory approval?
> Does that make a listener un-hear a broadcast? Or would the incentives
> lead to lots of wildcat radio stations pending approval?
>
>
> The safest move is to finalize the sale upon the approval; claiming that
> it is complete prior
> to that point is rather innovative (and might even be considered fraud if
> done knowingly...)
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
> this E-mail and any printout.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

--
Confidentiality Note:
The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments, if any, are
intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. If you are not the named
addressee, or if you believe this message has been addressed to you in
error, you are requested not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute,
disseminate or otherwise use this information. Delivery of this message to
any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way
to waive confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error,
please alert the sender by reply e-mail. It is also requested that you
immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any. Thank You.

© 2013 Technicate Solutions Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Sweeting, John — 2013-06-19T14:16:51Z

Hi,

If possible could we move this to a private conversation? This has all been aired on PPML several times before and at this point it serves no purpose. If we could please get back on track and focus on a current draft policy or proposal and state reasons for support or non support it would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
John

From: John Curran >
Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:12 PM
To: Mike Burns >
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" >, Mike Burns >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mike Burns > wrote:

You may say "legally purchasing" rights, but I truly don't know what these parties think
they purchased, since it can't be the ability to inject routes and have them accepted
(no one can provide that) nor the right to use the entry in the registry, when the
circumstances are contrary to policy.

I guess they figure they are buying what the Nortel bankruptcy judge called the “exclusive right to use” the addresses.

Indeed, but those are rights which may be transferred in accordance with policy. In the case
of Nortel, this was accomplished by ARIN working with Microsoft and confirming compliance
and then removing our objection, a point which Nortel's own filing makes - "10. Second, the
revisions reflected in the Amended Sale Agreement and Revised Order were the result of
negotiations between Microsoft, ARIN and NNI and, accordingly, ARIN’s counsel has
informed NNI that it does not oppose entry of the Revised Order. "

No problem buying the rights (that is, after all, what a transfer is) but you also have to wait
for the approval before considering the deal "closed", just as in the Nortel case.

Consider if the buyer of the radio station could begin and continue broadcasting without regard to regulatory approval?
Does that make a listener un-hear a broadcast? Or would the incentives lead to lots of wildcat radio stations pending approval?

The safest move is to finalize the sale upon the approval; claiming that it is complete prior
to that point is rather innovative (and might even be considered fraud if done knowingly...)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

John Curran — 2013-06-19T14:12:21Z

On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mike Burns > wrote:

You may say "legally purchasing" rights, but I truly don't know what these parties think
they purchased, since it can't be the ability to inject routes and have them accepted
(no one can provide that) nor the right to use the entry in the registry, when the
circumstances are contrary to policy.

I guess they figure they are buying what the Nortel bankruptcy judge called the “exclusive right to use” the addresses.

Indeed, but those are rights which may be transferred in accordance with policy. In the case
of Nortel, this was accomplished by ARIN working with Microsoft and confirming compliance
and then removing our objection, a point which Nortel's own filing makes - "10. Second, the
revisions reflected in the Amended Sale Agreement and Revised Order were the result of
negotiations between Microsoft, ARIN and NNI and, accordingly, ARIN’s counsel has
informed NNI that it does not oppose entry of the Revised Order. "

No problem buying the rights (that is, after all, what a transfer is) but you also have to wait
for the approval before considering the deal "closed", just as in the Nortel case.

Consider if the buyer of the radio station could begin and continue broadcasting without regard to regulatory approval?
Does that make a listener un-hear a broadcast? Or would the incentives lead to lots of wildcat radio stations pending approval?

The safest move is to finalize the sale upon the approval; claiming that it is complete prior
to that point is rather innovative (and might even be considered fraud if done knowingly...)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] Fw: A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Steven Ryerse — 2013-06-19T14:00:47Z

Amen! ARINs mission is to Allocate and Register. It isn't to find ways to Not Allocate and reasons to Not Register.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:40 PM, "Mike Burns" > wrote:

You started by indicating that this was an issue with registry accuracy, but the fact is that
when the purported sale is contrary to the policy, the registry still accurately reflects the
actual party with the rights to the unique registry entry, since the rights only change when
done in accordance with policy set by the community. Whether something is being routed
on the Internet or not is an entirely different matter, as shown operationally from time to time
by the various route leaks that occur.

The registry is accurate as long as it follows the community-developed policy; if you don't
like the policy, then work to change it. Regardless, the registry accurately reflects what
the community indicates it should under the circumstances.

Thanks,
/John

Hi John,

The community has loudly and recently spoken about which goal of RFC-2050 is universally accepted.
That goal is registration. If you want to continue to maintain the fallacy that the entities which are actually routing and using the addresses as their own, after legally purchasing those rights, are not the ones who should be listed in the Whois registry, then you are standing the goal of registration on its head by simply defining all the entries as accurate, in the same way the authorities responded to Galileo (“and yet it moves”), by asserting the primacy of words over reality.

Nevermind the propriety of maintaining deliberately false abuse contact information for purposes of maintaining a goal of conservation which was designed in the Free Pool Era and which is not appropriate in a world with a transfer market.
If the needs requirement is driving transactions underground, we are asked here to prioritize goals. I argue that the goal of conservation is lower than the goal of registration, has always been so, and with the advent of a pricing paradigm which naturally supports conservation, it is foolish of stewards to maintain one practice in support of a lesser goal in the face of a negative impact on the primary goal.

Regards,
MIke
_______________________________________________
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:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition ofIPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Mike Burns — 2013-06-19T13:42:34Z

Hi John,

You may say "legally purchasing" rights, but I truly don't know what these parties think
they purchased, since it can't be the ability to inject routes and have them accepted
(no one can provide that) nor the right to use the entry in the registry, when the
circumstances are contrary to policy.

I guess they figure they are buying what the Nortel bankruptcy judge called the “exclusive right to use” the addresses.
Whatever it is they are buying, they are routing and using the addresses. They move....

This is not new concept; e.g. you can buy a radio station broadcast license from an
existing operator, but it's not actually a sale until it passes regulatory approvals to be
reassigned to you. Until that time, your purchase is without any actual substance.

/John

Consider if the buyer of the radio station could begin and continue broadcasting without regard to regulatory approval?
Does that make a listener un-hear a broadcast? Or would the incentives lead to lots of wildcat radio stations pending approval?

Regards,
Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need postARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

William Herrin — 2013-06-19T13:17:08Z

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:32 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> Sometimes they buy the ability to route and use the (legacy) addresses
>> without changing that line in the Whois database.
>
> Now that's quite interesting, given that actually anyone can configure their
> equipment
> to originate routes to any IP address block they wish, and to my knowledge
> there is no
> party that can assure (on behalf of all ISPs globally) that it will be
> actually accepted.

Hi John,

This is part of the service one buys upon telling an ISP you want a
/24 for multihoming per ARIN NRPM 4.2.3.6. Not a fresh, new or
dangerous concept, nor one that fails to work.

IIRC, there was an effort to prevent this once... ISPs that wouldn't
accept these /24 BGP announcements from their peers. But that
collapsed as its enforcers realized it was costing them business and
is, today, a historical footnote.

Where the block in question is from a legacy registration, what
contractual or legal obligation prevents the holder from making a
lawful assignment larger than /24, without a multihoming (or any
other) requirement? And in perpetuity?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

John Curran — 2013-06-19T13:02:34Z

On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Mike Burns > wrote:

The community has loudly and recently spoken about which goal of RFC-2050 is universally accepted.
That goal is registration. If you want to continue to maintain the fallacy that the entities which are actually routing and using the addresses as their own, after legally purchasing those rights, are not the ones who should be listed in the Whois registry, then you are standing the goal of registration on its head by simply defining all the entries as accurate, in the same way the authorities responded to Galileo (“and yet it moves”), by asserting the primacy of words over reality.

Mike -

You may say "legally purchasing" rights, but I truly don't know what these parties think
they purchased, since it can't be the ability to inject routes and have them accepted
(no one can provide that) nor the right to use the entry in the registry, when the
circumstances are contrary to policy.

This is not new concept; e.g. you can buy a radio station broadcast license from an
existing operator, but it's not actually a sale until it passes regulatory approvals to be
reassigned to you. Until that time, your purchase is without any actual substance.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] Fw: A Redefinition of IPv4NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Mike Burns — 2013-06-19T12:40:19Z

You started by indicating that this was an issue with registry accuracy, but the fact is that
when the purported sale is contrary to the policy, the registry still accurately reflects the
actual party with the rights to the unique registry entry, since the rights only change when
done in accordance with policy set by the community. Whether something is being routed
on the Internet or not is an entirely different matter, as shown operationally from time to time
by the various route leaks that occur.

The registry is accurate as long as it follows the community-developed policy; if you don't
like the policy, then work to change it. Regardless, the registry accurately reflects what
the community indicates it should under the circumstances.

Thanks,
/John

Hi John,

The community has loudly and recently spoken about which goal of RFC-2050 is universally accepted.
That goal is registration. If you want to continue to maintain the fallacy that the entities which are actually routing and using the addresses as their own, after legally purchasing those rights, are not the ones who should be listed in the Whois registry, then you are standing the goal of registration on its head by simply defining all the entries as accurate, in the same way the authorities responded to Galileo (“and yet it moves”), by asserting the primacy of words over reality.

Nevermind the propriety of maintaining deliberately false abuse contact information for purposes of maintaining a goal of conservation which was designed in the Free Pool Era and which is not appropriate in a world with a transfer market.
If the needs requirement is driving transactions underground, we are asked here to prioritize goals. I argue that the goal of conservation is lower than the goal of registration, has always been so, and with the advent of a pricing paradigm which naturally supports conservation, it is foolish of stewards to maintain one practice in support of a lesser goal in the face of a negative impact on the primary goal.

Regards,
MIke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

John Curran — 2013-06-19T12:07:58Z

On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Mike Burns > wrote:
And yet they route...

Mike -

You started by indicating that this was an issue with registry accuracy, but the fact is that
when the purported sale is contrary to the policy, the registry still accurately reflects the
actual party with the rights to the unique registry entry, since the rights only change when
done in accordance with policy set by the community. Whether something is being routed
on the Internet or not is an entirely different matter, as shown operationally from time to time
by the various route leaks that occur.

The registry is accurate as long as it follows the community-developed policy; if you don't
like the policy, then work to change it. Regardless, the registry accurately reflects what
the community indicates it should under the circumstances.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 NeedpostARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Mike Burns — 2013-06-19T11:48:42Z

Now that's quite interesting, given that actually anyone can configure their equipment
to originate routes to any IP address block they wish, and to my knowledge there is no
party that can assure (on behalf of all ISPs globally) that it will be actually accepted.
(You might want to get a very clear warranty with that particular purchase.... :-)

FYI,
/John

Hi John,

And yet they route...

FYI,
Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need postARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

John Curran — 2013-06-19T11:32:08Z

On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Mike Burns > wrote:

Hi John,

Sometimes Buyers buy the listing in the ARIN database- that's a policy-based sale.

It's actually rights of use to the unique entry in the single global Internet registry,
which happens to be implemented collectively (and hierarchically) by IANA, the
RIRs, the ISPs/LIRs, etc. The community also has rights to those same entries,
which are distinct but just as real and a requirement for actual self-governance.
Refer to the number resource policy regarding how these rights interact.

Sometimes they buy the ability to route and use the (legacy) addresses without changing that line in the Whois database.

Now that's quite interesting, given that actually anyone can configure their equipment
to originate routes to any IP address block they wish, and to my knowledge there is no
party that can assure (on behalf of all ISPs globally) that it will be actually accepted.
(You might want to get a very clear warranty with that particular purchase.... :-)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Mike Burns — 2013-06-19T10:04:54Z

You began this discussion some time ago with a policy proposal which attempted to remove needs basis, was soundly rejected by the community, and which you backed off to the same compromise you are again proposing now. The community didn't want any part of it back then. At the time, there was no interest in continuing the discussion and the proposal was abandoned.
Hi Owen,
Just to be accurate, my proposal was never abandoned and is in fact section 8.3 of the NRPM.
Although mostly a rewording of the original 8.3, it did originally call for removing the needs test for transfers but added a 12 month exclusion period between the free pool and the transfer pool, whose purpose was to protect the free pool from those who would repeatedly sell their allocations just to get another from ARIN.
This was my attempt to reconcile the existence of a profit motive in transfers that should not be present for free pool addresses. In the end I reluctantly removed any limit on needs testing from my policy so that it could be passed in conjunction with the Inter-regional transfer policy, which otherwise would have exposed the ARIN free pool to the aforementioned sell, repeat cycle.
So I dropped the needs test exclusion in favor of opening the global transfer market, not because I came to the realization that I was tilting at windmills with the ARIN policy development community.
Regards,
Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

William Herrin — 2013-06-19T09:25:20Z

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
>> holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free, which
>> provide them with a competitive advantage over less endowed entities seeking
>> to purchase addresses at a much higher relative price.
>
> Yes, it has been argued. It hasn't necessarily been substantiated, nor has
> anyone raising said argument provided any real evidence to support it.

Of course the incumbent's assets offer a competitive advantage over
the challenger. With such a prima facie case, the burden rests on who
disagree to disprove it.

What's less obvious is:

1. Is this unreasonable?

2. How do ARIN's policies interact with this otherwise natural state
of affairs? Favorable/neutral/disfavorable to the
incumbent/challenger?

3. Is that unreasonable?

>> Remember the cap on needs-free transfers is designed to free up the market
>> to incentivize more transactions, each of which presumably entails the move
>> of addresses from lower-use states to higher-use states, while providing
>> some protection for market manipulations.

I think I would cautiously favor an experiment in this realm:

* Limit needs-free transfers to receiving one transfer of /20 or less
per year per organization,

* Keep the needs analysis for free pool assignments with a presumption
that a quick transfer out indicates fraud in the original
registration,

* Include a strong publication requirement. Originator and recipient
to be explicitly and publicly called out by ARIN with full details so
that anyone can monitor the status of the experiment.

* We don't consider expansion from /20 until at least 200 such
transfers go through so that we can work with real data when
predicting the efficacy of an expanded policy.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web:
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004