[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Transfer listingservice

Tom Vest tvest at pch.net
Sat Jun 13 03:24:51 EDT 2009

On Jun 12, 2009, at 10:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Tom Vest wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml- 
>>>> bounces at arin.net] On
>>>> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:09 AM
>>>> To: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
>>>> Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Transfer
>>>> listingservice
>>>> That might work too, but ARIN counsel, the AC, and others involved
>>>> thought it belonged in the 2008-2 transfer policy, and the CEO has
>>>> said they don't plan to do a listing service without policy  
>>>> directing
>>>> them to do so.
>>>> What do you think of the idea itself?
>>>> -Scott
>>> I probably should have mentioned that it is a nifty idea if it was  
>>> just us
>>> NetOps working with each other and the lawyers and governments  
>>> would keep
>>> out of it.  I just don't see much hope that the litigators and  
>>> regulators
>>> will keep their fingers out of the pie.
>> Hi Kevin,
>> Out of curiosity, do you think that litigators and regulators are  
>> more likely (or maybe very likely) to keep their fingers out if,  
>> after enabling the emergence of commercial IPv4 transfers, the RIRs  
>> take no further actions of any kind related to any IPv4 markets  
>> that emerge thereafter? Are your views on that probability-of- 
>> intervention question based on any particular expectation about  
>> whether and how IPv4 markets will actually work, or are they  
>> independent of all such expectations (i.e., no matter how things  
>> turn out, it would be better in all cases for the RIRs to take no  
>> position / no action at all)?

> IANAL, but, I think they are far less likely to name ARIN as  
> defendants.
> Owen

I agree entirely on that count, but wonder if that should be the  
primary determinant for which way to come down on this question (?).

If Kevin is right, then both ARIN the institution and "the industry"  
-- including every ARIN member -- is facing a choice much like  
Pascal's Wager:

1. What does (my company) stand to gain, or alternately lose, by  
assuming the best possible outcome and acting accordingly (i.e., doing  
2. What does (my company) stand to gain, or alternately lose, by  
taking positive action sooner rather than later, to hedge against  
something other than the best possible outcome?

3,4...? Repeat as necessary, replacing "my company" with any other  
nouns for which the same questions would seem to apply (e.g., the  
industry, the Internet, ARIN, future generations, etc.)...

I don't know, maybe all relevant questions have already been answered,  
or rendered moot, by the transfer decision itself. However, Scott's  
recent proposals seem to suggest otherwise.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list