[ppml] hoarding (was Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe ofAdditional Requests)
JOHN at egh.com
Mon Aug 20 13:08:36 EDT 2007
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.
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
> 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.
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML