[ppml] Markets, pricing, transparency, 2008-2 / 8.3.9
tvest at pch.net
Mon Mar 17 14:07:50 EDT 2008
On Mar 17, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Cliff Bedore wrote:
> 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
> detail what these other things are?
I have, at great length, in previous messages here and on NANOG,
using terms like "central registry" and "self-sustaining mechanisms",
et al. I'll try to provide a complete and coherent summary for those
interested ASAP -- certainly before the Denver meeting.
>> Since I cannot see how this suggestion would permit continued
>> on any of the other non-optional requirements, I believe it would
>> 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.
I think that matters have improved since 1992, although obviously
they have not recovered the glory of the earliest days, when the
universe of relevant parties was just a few dozen network operators,
all but a handful of which resided in the same country. I don't think
that's a reasonable benchmark however.
> 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
> Every time I have to renew my domain name, I hold my nose and pray
> the 23 pages of things I am agreeing to don't commit met to being
> to sell or give up my domain because somebody else wants a short
Actually, I think the contrast -- and the personal response that you
described below -- are very illuminating. The mechanism for
distributing (esp. top-level names) has been a source of eternal,
unrelenting, impassioned, existential criticism every day since day
one. The institutions that have administered names allocation have
probably spent 50-75% of their total man-hours to date simply
justifying their existence and actions. We may end up in the same
situation -- it may even be unavoidable -- but I personally think it
would be better if we could avoid that kind of overhead.
>> 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
> such alternatives?
I'm just a community member, same as you. I just made a
recommendation, same as you did.
I have passed a very different looking straw man proposal around, but
I'm not ready to introduce it into the formal policy development
process at this time. In any case, since the resource transfer
proposals seem to have generated great interest, it seems to me that
working in that context (if/ for as long as possible) makes a lot
more sense than trying to entice people to start speaking a whole
>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> 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,
>>> 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://
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
>>> 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.
> 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