[arin-ppml] Results of Transfer Proposal Survey
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
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...
> -----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
> > 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
> >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
> 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.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML