[ppml] Markets, pricing, transparency, 2008-2 / 8.3.9
cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com
Mon Mar 17 13:34:39 EDT 2008
Tom Vest wrote:
> I believe that the requirements for which successive address
> delegation regimes -- the RIRs included, but also each of their
> successors -- were established, and were supported by the community
> over time, include more than just the simple/blind distribution of IP
> addresses. I believe that the community actually had the *unique*
> *historically unprecedented* opportunity to exercise judgment over
> such matters *only* because they fulfilled those other requirements
I'm not sure of what any of that really means. Can you explain in more
detail what these other things are?
> Since I cannot see how this suggestion would permit continued delivery
> on any of the other non-optional requirements, I believe it would lead
> either to the end of the community itself, and/or the erosion and,
> ultimately, irretrievable loss the community's historically
> unprecedented privilege of industry self-governance.
Frankly the community has already lost a great deal of that. When I got
my /24 in 1992, it was in a letter without even a return address. When
I got the BDB.COM domain, it was done with a simple email. It might be
argued that ARIN is a somewhat logical follow-on to SRI, I see no way
that Network Solutions is in any way a community oriented organization.
Every time I have to renew my domain name, I hold my nose and pray that
the 23 pages of things I am agreeing to don't commit met to being forced
to sell or give up my domain because somebody else wants a short domain.
> Therefore I strongly recommend that the community reject this
> suggestion and get on with more realistic, sustainable alternatives.
I normally don't get real excited about things but who appointed you God
of what is realistic and sustainable and have you actually offered any
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Cliff Bedore wrote:
>> At the risk of repeating myself, I think 8.3.9 should be deleted in its
>> entirety. All ARIN needs to do in the process is allow 3rd parties to
>> transfer IP addresses directly from one party to another without being
>> returned to ARIN first. The numbers must be properly registered to the
>> transferor and the transferee must justify the need. Other than
>> that, ARIN
>> should have nothing to do with the dealings of the two parties. They
>> trade money, resort properties or pork futures and it's nobody's
>> business what
>> the transaction is.
>> In a prior message, I commented on other changes I think need to be
>> made to
>> 2008-2 but they mostly deal with the idea of ARIN having as little to
>> do with
>> negotiations between the 2(or more) parties and only certify the
>> validity of
>> the transfer.
>> Remember that this policy will only take effect when ARIN is likely
>> not to be
>> able to meet some requirements for addresses. Why would someone pay
>> money for
>> something they can get for free from ARIN. If ARIN doesn't have it, the
>> seekers of addresses should be able to get the addresses from any
>> provider and there should be no need to make any details of the
>> As an aside, I also agree that the SEC discussion has been noted, the
>> AC and
>> BoT have indicated they will look at it in further detail if 2008-2
>> Cliff Bedore
>> 7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740
>> cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com
>> Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Public Policy
>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if
>> you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML