[ppml] hoarding (was Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe ofAdditional Requests)

[John Santos]

Bill -

I am also a legacy holder and I second every thing you've said.

Also, I find Micheal's characterization of my position and motives
as false and demeaning.

-- John

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> > That is the crux of the issue. The hoarders are already there. They have
> > a stock of legacy IP addresses that they are sitting on in the hopes
> > that a market can develop. Because these legacy addresses are not
> > registered, we don't even know who these players are.
> 
> 	as a holder of legacy IP space, i object to your characterization.
> 	i did not get my blocks w/ an expectation of "a market" - i got them
> 	because i had a defensable use for them.  regarding registration,
> 	i'm pretty sure there are records for (nearly) all assignments/delegations
> 	so i'm not understanding your claim that legacy addresses are
> 	"not registered"....
> 
> > You've hit the nail on the head. The big difference between legacy
> > holders and ARIN holders is that ARIN holders are playing by the rules,
> > negotiating a common agreement with each other on a level playing field.
> > The legacy holders are hiding in the shadows relying on vague threats of
> > legal action. I believe that when push comes to shove, the U.S.
> > government will come out on the side of an orderly regime (not market)
> > because that is generally what the USG supports. For instance, SEC, WTO,
> > Sarbanes-Oxley. Until the Department of Commerce formally makes a
> > statement to the contrary, I believe that if early court cases do not
> > establish the supremacy of ARIN rules over legacy holders, then the DOC
> > will step in and move things in that direction. The best that legacy
> > holders can hope for is that there will be a ruling which gives them a
> > short time to come into compliance and show that their legacy
> > allocations are in fact, in accordance with ARIN rules.
> 
> 	legacy address holders are "playing by the rules" that were
> 	in effect when they received their assignments.  again
> 	i find your characterizations objectionable. what arin (and by
> 	extention the other RIR's and the IANA) need to do and to my 
> 	understanding is doing is to haromize the legacy rules w/ current
> 	RIR procedures - then ensure that outreach is done to bring the
> 	legecy holders onboard.    
> 
> 	ARIN is doing a very good job in opening a dialog w/ legacy holders
> 	and is being careful, prudent, and deliberate in its steps to include
> 	legacy holders within the ARIN framework.
> 
> 	your characterization has the tenor of a hostile standoff - requireing
> 	government intervention. i believe that the evidence thus far does not
> 	support your claims or beliefs.  one could view your statements as
> 	trying to incite a "siege" mentality ...  us v. them.   which if correct
> 	would be, IMHO, entirely wrong.  we -users of IP resources- are in this
> 	together and need to cooperate.
> 
> > --Michael Dillon
> 
> --bill manning 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539