[ppml] Markets, pricing, transparency, 2008-2 / 8.3.9

Tom Vest wrote:
> I believe that the requirements for which successive address 
> delegation regimes -- the RIRs included, but also each of their 
> successors -- were established, and were supported by the community 
> over time, include more than just the simple/blind distribution of IP 
> addresses. I believe that the community actually had the *unique* 
> *historically unprecedented* opportunity to exercise judgment over 
> such matters *only* because they fulfilled those other requirements 
> competently.

I'm not sure of what any of that really means.  Can you explain in more 
detail what these other things are?

>
> Since I cannot see how this suggestion would permit continued delivery 
> on any of the other non-optional requirements, I believe it would lead 
> either to the end of the community itself, and/or the erosion and, 
> ultimately, irretrievable loss the community's historically 
> unprecedented privilege of industry self-governance.

Frankly the community has already lost a great deal of that.  When I got 
my /24 in 1992, it was in a letter without even a return address.  When 
I got the BDB.COM domain, it was done with a simple email.  It might be 
argued that ARIN is a somewhat logical follow-on to SRI, I see no way 
that Network Solutions is in any way a community oriented organization.  
Every time I have to renew my domain name, I hold my nose and pray that 
the 23 pages of things I am agreeing to don't commit met to being forced 
to sell or give up my domain because somebody else wants a short domain.

>
> Therefore I strongly recommend that the community reject this 
> suggestion and get on with more realistic, sustainable alternatives.

I normally don't get real excited about things but who appointed you God 
of what is realistic and sustainable and have you actually offered any 
such alternatives? 

Cliff

>
>
> TV
>
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Cliff Bedore wrote:
>
>> At the risk of repeating myself, I think 8.3.9 should be deleted in its
>> entirety.  All ARIN needs to do in the process is allow 3rd parties to
>> transfer IP addresses directly from one party to another without being
>> returned to ARIN first.  The numbers must be properly registered to the
>> transferor and the transferee must justify the need.  Other than 
>> that, ARIN
>> should have nothing to do with the dealings of the two parties.  They 
>> can
>> trade money, resort properties or pork futures and it's nobody's 
>> business what
>> the transaction is.
>>
>> In a prior message, I commented on other changes I think need to be 
>> made to
>> 2008-2 but they mostly deal with the idea of ARIN having as little to 
>> do with
>> negotiations between the 2(or more) parties and only certify the 
>> validity of
>> the transfer.
>>
>> Remember that this policy will only take effect when ARIN is likely 
>> not to be
>> able to meet some requirements for addresses.  Why would someone pay 
>> money for
>> something they can get for free from ARIN.  If ARIN doesn't have it, the
>> seekers of addresses should be able to get the addresses from any 
>> legitimate
>> provider and there should be no need to make any details of the 
>> transaction
>> public.
>>
>> As an aside, I also agree that the SEC discussion has been noted, the 
>> AC and
>> BoT have indicated they will look at it in further detail if 2008-2 
>> proceeds.
>>
>> Cliff
>>
>> -- 
>> Cliff Bedore
>> 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740
>> cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com
>> Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
>> Public Policy
>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if 
>> you experience any issues.
>