[arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1review

[John Sweeting]

Ted, 

This specific thread IS about 2009-1. It is about having an intelligent
discussion about the contents of 2009-1 and providing input back to the
Board through the AC using this PPML mailing list so that the AC can then
make a recommendation to the Board. Marla is trying to reach out to everyone
in the community for their opinions on what the AC feels are the 4 most
important issues with 2009-1. If you want to continue to beat up the Board,
or the AC for that matter then it would be more appropriate to start a new
thread. Please let people that would like to voice their opinions about
2009-1 on this thread do that. I truly respect your right to your opinions
and to your right to share those opinions and would ask that you show the
same respect and courtesy in return. If the community has truly lost faith
in the Board members then I expect it will show in the next election.
Personally I do not think the Board has lost the trust of the community and
I think that most people feel that they have acted in a manner that they
felt necessary. Since we are still in the discussion stage I think it only
fair to see how this plays out and wait for the end result. As for the
Board, this is essentially the same Board that has served us so well over
the years and has helped to make ARIN what it is and for that I am willing
to give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I can ask that you
do the same but that, of course, is your decision. In closing I would ask
only that you allow this thread to stay on track for collecting opinions on
the actual wording in 2009-1. Thank you

For everyone else out there please take the time to provide your thoughts
and opinions on the 4 items that Marla has requested as it is critical for
the AC to understand the positioning of the community on this policy. Thank
you.


On 4/2/09 5:57 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> Marla,
>  
>   The fact of the matter is that this isn't about the merits of 2009-1
> anymore.  It is about whether or
> not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and de-polarize this
> issue.
>  
>   If 2009-1 is put in place against opposition, then it will be subject to
> constant additional
> future policy proposals to strip it out, and it will require further
> opposition against the majority to
> keep it in the policies, which will just widen the breach of trust.
> Eventually it will go or the
> Board will go and then it will go after that - but by then the atmosphere will
> be so poisoned
> that we will be hamstrung with dealing with this IPv6 transition at a critical
> time.
>  
>   There is still time now for the Board to apologize and atone for it's
> mistake.  Atonement is
> simple, either withdraw it and all proposals associated and wait for a new,
> fresh set of proposals
> during the next round, or, restore the sunset clause.
>  
>   Seriously, this really, really, really isn't about the merits of this
> proposal anymore.  It
> is an issue of trust - the Board broke it, and the cooler heads out here are
> all sitting here
> scratching our heads as to why the Board simply doesn't acknowledge they
> screwed up
> and take the extremely simple action, EASILY reversible by policy later, of
> just restoring
> the sunset clause.
>  
> Ted
>  
> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net  [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Azinger,  Marla
>> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:41 PM
>> To:  arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and  con merits of 2009-1 review
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>> I've waited for calmer  waters to discuss the merits of this proposal in
>>> hopes that others can do  the same and not get lost in the sea of procedural
>>> commentary.    Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I came up
>>> with  and I would like to hear what other pro's, con's, solutions and
>>> opinions the  rest of the community has.  While I am grateful for those who
>>> have  already posted their opinions to ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks
>>> that  have not yet posted to ppml on this subject.
>>>  
>>> Sunset  Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
>>> Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers  and resume original policy.
>>> Con: A hard date could be totally the  wrong date.
>>> Con: Results may show evidence that keeping the  transfer policy as
>>> permanent policy is better for the ARIN than reverting  back to original
>>> policy. 
>>> Alternate solution:  It might be  better to write in a clause the requires
>>> review and analysis of the state of  address space availability every year.
>>> If there proves to be zero  difficulty fulfilling IP requests for a period
>>> of one year then revert back  to original policy and deactivate this policy.
>>> My opinion: Its  cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or anything
>>> of its kind.   If in the future we enter into free flowing address space
>>> again, we  can always enact the policy process to revert back to the
>>> original transfer  policy.  Either way its not a show  stopper but going
>>> without it seems to me to be the best  way.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Implementation Date Now and no wait time
>>> Pro:  Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black Market
>>> which is  currently active and growing.
>>> Pro: Immediate implementation would  help preserve WHOIS data.
>>> Con: The free world of  addressing as we currently know it  comes to an end.
>>> Alternate solution: Wait till the address availability has  reached a
>>> choking point.
>>> My opinion: It sucks to see there is no  escape from supply and demand.  The
>>> former utopian addressing world was  great but the fact is when the quantity
>>> of anything becomes limited, people  no longer freely share or give but
>>> require some form of monetary return.    We can't escape the fundamentals of
>>> supply and demand and I  believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much
>>> as possible is more  important than clinging to the past and in that time
>>> frame watching the  black market grow and the accuracy of IP usage and
>>> record of authoritative  source decline.  We already need to improve in
>>> those areas and this  isn't a jab to start that discussion on ppml right
>>> now, but it would be best  to in the least take action that stops it from
>>> getting any worse while at  the same time ensuring conservation/proper
>>> usage.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> New  Definition ³Organization.  An Organization is  one or more legal
>>> entities under common control or  ownership.²
>>> Pro: This will force organizations into  proper management of IP addresses.
>>> Pro: This could cut down on  waste from large organizations that are
>>> segmented. 
>>> Con: Large  segmented organizations will have to face management of address
>>> space on a  higher level.  Currently one organization can own three or more
>>> companies that up until now have operated separately when it came to address
>>> management.  With this additional definition Company A could have allot  of
>>> address space that effectively stops Company B from getting more address
>>> space because per the new definition the addresses would need to be shared
>>> among the whole Organization not individually by Company as in the past.
>>> This would force address management up to the organizational  level.
>>> Alternate solution: Grandfather existing  organizations.
>>> My opinion: While this may be difficult to swallow  for some organizations I
>>> believe its the most accurate and efficient way to  manage address space.
>>> It may  also serve as an indirect push towards the adoption of  IPv6.
>>  
>>>  
>>> Clarification needed on what this  policy specifically is applied to (v4, v6
>>> both?)
>>>  
>>> New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for  IPv4 only.  I
>>> think it needs to be clear what this policy will be  applied to as it makes
>>> sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since its needed due to a  supply and demand
>>> situation.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> In Summary:
>>> As I went  through this I was surprised to find that I actually think the
>>> changes made  are appropriate.  I don't think the sunset clause is a
>>> functioning  tool.  I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to
>>> waiting and  the new definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to
>>> address  conservation and management.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Those are my 2 cents.   I hope to hear from the other community members that
>>> have not yet  posted thoughts about the policy text itself.
>>>  
>>> Cheers
>>> Marla  Azinger
>>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
 
 
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090402/fec9dc3c/attachment.htm>