[arin-ppml] Your views on ARIN Transfer Policy Proposal 2008-2

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Jul 15 16:01:46 EDT 2008

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Darte
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:02 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Your views on ARIN Transfer Policy 
> Proposal 2008-2
> The ARIN Advisory Council(AC) is charged with assessing 
> consensus on policy proposals. 
> Most often, proposals are relatively straighforward and 
> orient toward relatively well-known issues that have a 
> greater or lesser impact on the community.  When this is the 
> case, the process of the Information Resource Policy 
> Evaluation Policy (IRPEP) works pretty well.
> When something as big as an amended transfer policy proposal 
> comes along with all its implications and little experience 
> by anyone, especially when the proposal itself is crafted by 
> the AC and tries to be very specific and 
> comprehensive....well, this delivers unprecedented challenges 
> to get concise feedback from the community and make progress 
> toward consensus.

I really question that the AC wants consensus on this proposal.

> I personally feel perplexed by this today and I am polling 
> those engaged in ppml to help me and my colleagues move this 
> proposal forward.

There has been a large amount of feedback on the discussion list
already on this proposal.

Bill, I don't know if you are a supporter of this proposal or
not but I will assume for the rest of this e-mail that you are, and
when I say "you" I mean "everyone who dreamed this up and is pushing
it"  So don't take "you" personally.

You need to keep in mind that this is a very polarizing proposal.
And of course it is, because of how your doing it.  Your basically
trying a revolutionary approach to the proposal and everyone on
the list is already somewhat conservative, or they wouldn't even
be subscribed.  That's the first strike against it.

Even if I was for the concept of allowing 3rd parties to buy and sell
IPv4 addresses - which I am not - I would vote against this because
it is too much, too fast.

There currently is no consensus in the community for an answer to the
question of whether it is even a good idea to even begin taking steps
to try prolonging the life of IPv4 in the first place.

This proposal is attempting to do an end-run around that discussion
by ASSUMING that we should be prolonging IPv4 and asking the community
to say the best way to do it.  In short, you have already made up our
minds for us on that score.

So, the people like myself who are opposed to the idea realize that
there is no point in even discussing anything with the supporters
of this proposal.  They don't want to examine or even admit that 
it might be a bad thing to attempt to interfere with the natural
course of events that would result in the death of IPv4 in a few

And you figure that once you have a 51% majority that is
all you need to force your paradigm.

I am not interested in helping you to modify this proposal.  I do not
consider that you are reaching out to the opposition.  I think that all
your trying to do is scrape a few undecided people into your camp
to obtain that 51% majority.

If you really wanted to reach out to the opposition then scrap this
and replace it with a proposal that modifies the NRPM to insert a
single, simple paragraph that states that it is ARIN's position that
steps must be taken to prolong the use of IPv4 past the runout date.

That would allow the community to debate the wisdom of attempting to
extend IPv4.  If the majority ended up deciding that this was a good
thing, then the minority of people opposed to allowing IPv4 to just
die naturally would at least have the feeling that they would be able
to have some input in the next phase of the discussion - which is how
to best extend it.

IF the community DID decide it was a good thing to extend IPv4, THEN
you can resurrect this proposal at that time.

At this point all I want is for the vote to take place because I think
this proposal will lose, and losing is the ONLY THING that I think that
will bring you to your senses to realize that you aren't going
to be able to sidestep the discussion, and your going to have to have the
discussion of whether extending IPv4 is a good idea or not, whether you want
to or not.  Because, it's obvious your not willing to discuss that topic
Probably because your afraid of losing, because deep down you know it
is a bad idea to extend IPv4.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list