[arin-ppml] Results of Transfer Proposal Survey

Tue Aug 26 16:59:36 EDT 2008

No-one had to answer any question...therefore the could have skipped to
the bottom and said NO....

but....to ask the question....

All those against a liberalized transfer policy of any kind...please
reply saying so...

Bill Darte
ARIN AC 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:55 PM
> To: 'Member Services'; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-announce at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Results of Transfer Proposal Survey
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:37 AM
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-announce at arin.net
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Results of Transfer Proposal Survey
> > 
> > 
> > Subscribers to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List were invited to 
> > participate last week in a policy proposal survey. The ARIN 
> Advisory 
> > Council, working on an update to Policy Proposal 2008-2, 
> IPv4 Transfer 
> > Policy Proposal, sponsored the survey in order to gain additional 
> > input.
> >  
> > Two hundred plus subscribers to the mail list participated. 
> > The results
> > of the survey are available on the ARIN website at:  
> > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/surveys/
> > and in pdf  version at: 
> > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/surveys/pdfs/survey_summa
> ry_08242008.pdf 
> 
> 
> >This input will be added to that gained during the ARIN XXI 
> meeting in 
> >Denver, the Caribbean sector meeting in Jamaica and the upcoming 
> >Caribbean sector meeting in the Bahamas. Additional 
> discussion of the 
> >proposal will take place at the ARIN XXII Public Policy and Members 
> >Meeting being held 15-17 October in Los Angeles, California.
> 
> >Please note that the Advisory Council continues to seek 
> input on this 
> >issue.
> 
> This survey was biased from the beginning - it omitted one 
> key question at the beginning:  Do you want a liberalized 
> transfer policy at all?  That is why the number of persons 
> responding from the PPL was so small - 11% - because if you 
> were opposed a liberalized policy, you could see where the 
> survey was going and undoubtedly most people opposed to a 
> liberalized policy abandoned the survey before completion.
> 
> It's actually much more significant that question 11 had a 
> 13% NO response!  Since the survey was SO biased, it's 
> amazing that that many people opposed to a liberalized policy 
> actually made it through the survey at all!
> 
> Where the usefulness of this survey is, though, is in telling 
> us WHO is making up the pro-liberalization camp.
> 
> The significant responses are as follows:
> 
> Question 11:  86% in favor.  OK well we already knew that 
> because very few people opposing liberalized transfers would 
> be completing the survey after getting to this question.
> 
> Question 10:  80% in favor.  What this tells us is that those 
> in favor of liberalization want the "RIR stamp of approval" 
> on their transaction.  One more, this is a no-brainer; it 
> should have been obvious prior to the survey that people 
> calling for a "legacy number broker" separate from the RIR 
> were the fringe element.
> 
> Neither 11 or 10 tell us anything we don't already know and 
> are more distractor questions than anything else.
> 
> Question 9:  53% in favor of limiting multiple requests, 47% 
> against.  This is where it gets interesting - what this is 
> telling us is that the pro-liberalized transfer camp is 
> itself split over the idea of allowing freewheeling-and-dealing of
> IPv4 numbers.
> 
> Question 8: 58% for current holders being allowed limited 
> deaggregation, the rest want no limits.  This is also 
> indicative of that split in the pro-liberalized transfer camp.
> What it is telling us is HOW each camp wants things to proceed.
> 
> The pro-wheeling-and-dealing camp are speculators - their aim 
> is to make a lot of money brokering large blocks, splitting 
> them up, and selling them.  Any kind of restrictions would 
> crimp their plans.  But they are in the minority.  The bulk 
> of the pro-liberalized transfer folks are just wanting to 
> make money off holdings that they have, but aren't using, or 
> have but could easily give up by renumbering.  They want 
> limited deaggregation because that is all they need - and 
> since they are planning on staying in the game long-haul, 
> they don't want to screw themselves by allowing unlimited 
> growth of routing entries in the BGP table.
> 
> Question 7: 74% in favor of ARIN having control over limiting 
> deaggregation.  Once more, a no-brainer.  These are the same 
> folks who want ARIN's blessing in Question #10.  Why would 
> you be in favor of having ARIN operating a listing service 
> but not giving them control over the stuff listed on it?  
> That's why the % split on this question was within a few 
> points of the split on #10
> 
> Question 6: 71% in favor of prequals on need.  No brainer here.
> This is basically a restatement of the idea in #7 and #10 - 
> give ARIN control.
> 
> Question 5: Nearly even split on prequals of address holders 
> wanting to sell space.  This basically indicates the level of 
> discomfort of the pro-liberalization camp who are NOT 
> speculators.  Obviously if you're a speculator then you don't 
> care where the IPv4 is coming from, whether the holder meets 
> prequal or not.  The only people who would care are the ones 
> who are pro-liberalization only for the reason that they want 
> to see more space freed up, or perhaps sell off some of their 
> own holdings.  The majority of -those- people are not happy 
> with the idea of allowing un-prequalified people out there 
> selling off IPv4.
> 
> Question 4:  Uninteresting question - nobody cares what 
> happens after the deal is done.
> 
> Question 3:  This is like Question 9 and 8 - it merely shows 
> the split in the pro-liberalization camp, but it does 
> indicate the bulk of the speculators are coming from the 
> legacy arena because obviously if legacy holders didn't make 
> up a large number of survey respondents, they wouldn't care 
> if the legacy holders were shafted by an LRSA and the 
> response would throw the legacy holders under the bus by a 
> stronger majority voting yes.
> 
> Question 2: No brainer, basically a restatement of question #11
> 
> Question 1: Expiration date.  This is like 9, 8 and 3.  It 
> shows the split in the pro-liberalization camp.  Obviously, 
> speculators aren't going to want an expiration date of the 
> liberalized policy.  But the non-speculators in favor of a 
> liberalized policy are more evenly split on the idea of an 
> expiration date.
> 
> In summary, while the survey illustrated the internal split 
> within the pro-liberalization camp, it still doesen't tell us 
> what is really important - how many people really are in 
> favor of a liberalized policy.  It in no way indicates that 
> there is a majority of people in favor of a liberalized 
> transfer policy.
> 
> A more even-handed and unbiased survey would have been more useful.
> 
> Ted
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 