[arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 2009-4: IPv4Recovery

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net] 
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:47 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Keith Medcalf'; 'Cliff'; 'Jeff Aitken'; 'arin ppml'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [a-p] Revised -- Policy Proposal 
> 2009-4: IPv4Recovery
> 
> 
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> >

> >
> > Huh?  Incorrect by all counts both in the analogies and with ARIN.
> 
> Incorrect on all counts for ARIN *today.*
> 
> ARIN currently has no active enforcement power that is not 
> contingent on its centrality in the (subsequent) allocation 
> process.

That isn't true.  If ARIN reallocates IPv4 (or IPv6) then
the original holders of the numbering will have a lot of
problems.

If I get a ticket for going 80 on the highway, it isn't
going to prevent me from continuing to go 80 on the
highway.  But it will cause a lot of problems for me
(specifically, for my pocketbook)

That's enforcement.  Just because the cops aren't cutting my
head off for doing 80 doesn't mean there's no enforcement.

> But that's not as important as the passive 
> "pro-compliance" mechanisms that are also fundamentally tied 
> up with ARIN's central place in the allocation process...
> 

alternic.net and opennic.net make the same arguments about
ICANN but until you get the majority of people believing them,
they are nothing more than "crank" status.

Since the "passive" mechanisms that ARIN has for compliance
are and have been effective, the community has been unwilling
to push ARIN to use more "active" tools.  This -is- changing,
but slowly.  I don't think many in the community want to
see it change any faster as long as the "passive" tools are
effective, and they will be effective until IPv4-runout.

After that, I personally think a more "militant" approach
will be called for.  IAB also felt so about the alternate
root system in RFC 2826.  In the DNS system, they
long-ago reached the point of "cool-sounding domain name
runout" and are currently in a mode of restricted 
"cool-sounding, desirable domain names" availability.

> 
> You already clearly indicated that you know how rowdy the 
> building is; would you bet on it?
>

Yes, I would.  The reason why is that if the rowdy people
make any serious trouble, they will be sat on.

There's many orgs out there who have sunk hundreds of millions
of USD into the current existing Internet infrastructure and they
are going to side with ARIN simply because ARIN has money and
has been around for a while.

If a case comes up where Joe Schmoe Inc. "sells" his IPv4
to Sally Howe Inc., and ARIN says that Sally hasn't met
requirements for portable numbering, and refuses to grant
a change in WHOIS, then turns around and assigns Joe's
IPv4 to the Coca Cola company, then Sally is screwed.  She
will have to get her numbering from her ISP and just stuff
it.  If she tries routing the block she "bought" then
she will be bankrupted.

This is just how things are done in business.  I'm not saying
it's right, or good, or moral.  I'm saying this is how it is
when there is a lot of money involved.

If you don't believe me, I suggest you have a chat with
Eugene Kashpureff
 
> All I'm saying is if the community wants to support 
> transfers, then the community might want to find something 
> more effective that faith in a sudden, selective, and vast 
> improvement in human nature to make them work.
>

Transfers "working" are dependent on how they are viewed
by this very same community that you think it flawed for
relying on "faith".  If the admin of AOL for example feels
that the IPv4 I'm advertising was illegally got, then
nothing is going to make him remove the blocks he puts in
his routers against me.

As I've said before I've been neutral to this
proposal with the exception of publicizing the "going rate"
which I think merely politicizes the entire operation. But,
I do think that if we are going to move IPv4 between orgs then
the moves will not be accepted by the community unless they
are done through ARIN.

Ted