[arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18, 2009

[Tom Vest]

On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> The fear argument goes something like this:
>
> When IPv4 runs out some large cash-rich org will request a
> block and be denied.  That org will then spend it's money
> lobbying it's nation's government that the RIR's know that
> there's lots of available IPv4 tied up in old assignments that
> aren't being used, and that because ARIN has the bulk of it,
> and ARIN hasn't done enough to scavenge out this stale addressing,
>
> So far, so plausible. Your scenario goes comically awry at this  
> point, however:
>
> that ARIN is no longer functioning, and that the U.N. needs
> to assign a committee - like WIPO was done with the DNS
> system - to interfere and take control of the assignment
> mechanism away from ARIN.
>
> As someone who does a bit more than “follow” the global politics of  
> Internet governance, I can assure you that large, cash-rich  
> organizations (ISPs) in North America are the last parties on earth  
> who will want to call in the United Nations. It is true that the ITU  
> would like to get address allocation/assignment back into an  
> intergovernmental system. It is also true that the entire Internet  
> industry and the USG are implacably opposed to that. Outside of  
> China and a few middle eastern countries like Syria, you would have  
> a hard time telling me who does support that.
>
> ARIN will cease to exist and chaos will ensue.
>
> Really? Just like that? I shake with fear.
>
> It is NOT necessary to create a buying-and-selling market of
> IP numbers to obtain close to 100% use of routable IPv4.  It
> is merely necessary to prove that all assignable, routable IPv4
> is in use on the Internet.  Cleaning and grooming WHOIS is a
> major first step.
>
> What you seem to miss is that a transfer system, executed properly,  
> is the best way to clean and groom the Whois system because it  
> harnesses the private incentive to benefit from trades. ARIN can  
> either swim upstream or swim downstream.
>
Yes, the proof of that assertion is evident in the current state of  
DNS-related whois.

The only reason that dysfunctional DNS whois can be abided without  
(even greater) consequence is because the number registries continue  
to be widely accepted as good enough -- and efforts to further improve  
their quality (real and perceived) are underway.

The private incentives to trade are, by definition, private. Presuming  
that you can know in advance that they will balance in favor of public  
identifiability of number resources would be irresponsible, and  
unrealistic in the face of actual industry experience.

Milton, we are still waiting your views on what "cleaning and  
grooming" actually means -- the last time an inquiry into this  
question was made, you provided no response:

On Aug 31, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Tom Vest wrote:

> Hi Milton,
>
> A couple of quick questions:
>
> 1. Do you think that the completeness and accuracy of current DNS  
> whois is the right standard for IP number whois?
>
> 2. Does your vision for individual privacy rights extend to  
> "corporate persons," or only to natural persons?
> -- It would appear that you reject the distinction in DNS whois:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-reg-sgc/msg00072.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> TV


On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Vest [mailto:tvest at pch.net]
>>
>> A couple of quick questions:
>>
>> 1. Do you think that the completeness and accuracy of current DNS
>> whois is the right standard for IP number whois?
>
> I have a more relevant question to ask. Do you think that IP number
> Whois should be optimized to permit copyright holders to identify
> individual file-sharers on ISP networks and serve legal process on  
> them?
>
> You answer that first, we'll discuss the details of DNS Whois
> afterwards. It is a subject I know a lot about.

Since you raised this issue again, I believe that it would be helpful  
if you actually shared your views on this matter this time around.

Thanks,

TV