[ppml] Markets, pricing, transparency, 2008-2 / 8.3.9

[Scott Leibrand]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 5:22 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that I speak for the entire list in wondering why the
>> ARIN AC, are pushing this transfer proposal so hard?
>>
> I don't believe that the AC is pushing the proposal so hard.
> I believe that one member of the AC is pushing rather hard
> for the proposal. OTOH, I, for one, am somewhere between
> neutral and opposed to the proposal at this point.
> 
> I know that there are other members of the AC who are
> also not necessarily in favor of this proposal.

Correct.  And to clarify my position, I strongly believe (as an 
individual) that some sort of transfer policy that supports a market 
will be necessary for the continued smooth functioning of the IPv4 
portion of the Internet as we transition to IPv6.  I'm not necessarily 
100% in favor of all the aspects of 2008-2 (such as the restrictions on 
deaggregation), and I could support a number of variations on 2008-2 
(such as Tom's transparency provisions) if the community thinks they 
would improve the policy.

As Owen correctly states, there are a wide variety of views on this 
topic, and some very good arguments for many of them.  By participating 
in this discussion on PPML (and at the meeting in Denver), I hope that 
we (as a community) can bring out all the good arguments on all sides, 
and begin coming together around a consensus position.

>> In the past, the ARIN AC did not attempt to run the public policy
>> process, instead they responded to proposals from others. Something
>> is not right...

I believe there will be an opportunity to discuss the ARIN AC's role in 
the policy development process at the Denver meeting.

> 1.	Assuming that a member of the AC posting to this list
> 	is posting as spokesperson for the AC and not as a
> 	member of the public is not right.

And to expound on this point, communication from the AC as a whole will 
always come from Member Services to PPML.  The only such messages I see 
on the topic of the IPv4 transfer policy have been the letter of 
February 7 announcing that the AC would be presenting a policy proposal, 
and the standard announcements posting the policy proposal text, policy 
number, etc.

> 2.	Assuming that once elected, members of the AC are
> 	not members of the public and have less right to be
> 	involved in authoring policy than any other member
> 	of the public is not right.

ARIN AC members are elected by the ARIN community based on their 
contributions to and knowledge of the public policy process, and the 
issues addressed by policy.  In order to make sure that the community 
receives the maximum benefit out of such knowledge, I believe it is 
important that AC members be encouraged to continue participating in the 
public policy process.

> Just so we're clear here, the above is strictly my personal
> opinion as a member of the public.

And as I mentioned above, *all* public statements (including this one) 
made directly by AC members should be considered personal opinions 
unless stated otherwise.

> As a member of the AC, I will say that there is no official
> AC position in favor of 2008-2, nor is there any official
> AC position against 2008-2.  I am not sure what portion
> of the AC supports or opposes the proposal.  I know
> that during the development process, several of us were
> using the approach of "assume that we need some sort of
> transfer proposal, what's the best one we can come up with."

Agreed.

> The AC has not held significant discussion about whether
> or not a such a transfer proposal is something we actually
> want.

And it's also important to note that it doesn't really matter (in the 
context of the public policy process) whether the AC believes that a 
transfer proposal is desirable.  Regardless of what we think personally 
or collectively, the AC must respect the will of the community in 
advancing or rejecting any policy proposal.  Even if I believe a policy 
proposal is a good idea, and in the best interest of the community, I 
can't/won't vote to send it to the Board for adoption unless the 
community has expressed consensus in favor of the proposal.

I haven't seen a consensus yet (for or against), so I'm continuing to 
work to see if we can develop a proposal that achieves consensus. 
Thanks, to you and everyone else who has contributed to the discussions 
so far, for sharing your opinion and helping move that process forward.

-Scott