[arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18, 2009
dogwallah at gmail.com
Tue Mar 31 00:51:14 EDT 2009
On 3/31/09, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> > The
> > Board has been concerned for some time that the lack of a
> > liberalized transfer policy would create legal risk: that we
> > had not provided a mechanism to improve the efficient
> > utilization of previously-allocated resources, and that this
> > risk was significant enough to jeopardize ARIN's ability to
> > fulfill its stewardship mission.
> I have been saying this same thing for years and this is
> why I proposed the POC cleanup. HOWEVER it must be clear that
> this statement presumes that the legal risk is created by
> the lack of a liberalized transfer policy. This is a fundamentally
> flawed argument. The legal risk is NOT created by this,
> the legal risk is created by INSUFFICIENT utilization of
> assignable IPv4.
> 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,
> 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.
..and they will be doing this with a fleet of black helicopters
landing in Chantilly?
More information about the ARIN-PPML