[arin-ppml] Results of Transfer Proposal Survey

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Aug 26 15:54:20 EDT 2008

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Member Services'; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-announce at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Results of Transfer Proposal Survey
> > 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.
> >
> Actually, no.  We were trying to gauge what, if any, changes
> to a liberalized transfer policy would make it palatable, 
> and, at the end, we specifically asked "If a proposal 
> incorporated your above feedback, would you support such a proposal?"
> We put the question at the end of the survey, not at the 
> beginning, but, the question was, indeed, in there.

My main objection was putting that question at the end of the
survey - and there was also that bit about answering question 11
consistent with your prior answers.  Kind of in a way saying don't
bother disagreeing unless you disagreement was consistent with your
earlier "agreement" you might say.

I did take and complete the survey, BTW.

> >
> > 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.
> >
> It at least tells us that a strong majority of respondents to 
> the survey are in favor of a liberalized transfer policy.  If 
> you are opposed to such a policy in general, then, I 
> encourage you to speak up on PPML and let us know.

I and others have done this already and the AC is well aware
I am sure that opponents of a liberalized transfer policy feel
that we should be focusing on IPv6 and not doing things to
try and extend IPv4.  A liberalized transfer policy fundamentally
extends the usability of IPv4 by providing IPv4 past the
so-called date of "IPv4 runout"

> Personally, I do not think a liberalized transfer policy is
> a good idea.  As an AC member, I perceive a roughly 50/50
> split between those in favor and those opposed with a
> great deal of variation among those in favor as to what
> kind of policy they want to see.
> > A more even-handed and unbiased survey would have been more useful.
> >
> I'm sorry the survey was not to your liking, but, we really 
> did try to make it as even-handed as possible in the short 
> time that was available to craft the questions.  Remember, 
> the survey was crafted by a group of volunteers trying to 
> gather data from the community based on feedback already 
> received and in order to gain some insight into how we might 
> better craft the next revision of 2008-2.

How about the idea of NOT crafting another revision of 2008-2?

> The question of whether a transfer policy should exist at all 
> or not is one for this list and for the public policy 
> meeting(s). At the Denver meeting, there was certainly strong 
> support from the community to continue working on a transfer policy.

Supporting the idea of "continuing to work on a policy" is
entirely different than supporting the results of that labor.

I for example strongly support the US continuing to work on
a new energy policy.  But, I oppose:

)paying more money for energy
)using less energy for myself
)more nuke plants
)more coal plants
)importing more oil
)offshore drilling
)ANWR drilling
)wind farms because they interfere with birds
)tidal generation because the plants mess up the pristine beach views
)geothermal generation because power plants shouldn't be in
national forests and parks where most of the geothermal is
)more transmission lines because they produce radiation
)ethanol because it uses up our food supply
)biodiesel because it uses up our food supply and encourages
people to eat more fried foods that make them fat
)more hydropower because of damaging fish runs
)burning more natural gas because it adds to global warming
)communities covering the roofs of their houses with solar cells
because it violates the deed restrictions the neighborhood
association setup that define what kind of roof is supposed to
be on the home

But, by golly, keep working on that new energy policy!!!! ;-)


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list