[arin-ppml] Results of Transfer Proposal Survey
alain_durand at cable.comcast.com
Tue Aug 26 17:41:50 EDT 2008
I'm still not convinced we need a liberalized transfer policy at all... And
I'm also not convinced that such a policy would be sufficient to address the
problem at hand, ie scaling the Internet after IANA completion.
On 8/26/08 4:59 PM, "Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 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
>>> Council, working on an update to Policy Proposal 2008-2,
>> IPv4 Transfer
>>> Policy Proposal, sponsored the survey in order to gain additional
>>> Two hundred plus subscribers to the mail list participated.
>>> The results
>>> of the survey are available on the ARIN website at:
>>> and in pdf version at:
>>> 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.
> 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