[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy ? Revisedandforwarded to the Board

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Tue May 5 19:32:40 EDT 2009


I am glad to hear that.

Ted 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 4:24 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'arin ppml'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy 
> ? Revisedandforwarded to the Board
> 
> Ted,
> 
> Owen's proposal was rejected by the AC simply because the 
> timing was poor.  If a similar proposal were to be 
> resubmitted (by Owen or anyone
> else) I would vote to accept it onto our docket, develop it 
> into draft policy, and have it on the agenda at the fall meeting.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Scott,
> >  
> >   Owen already attempted to submit a policy change to 2009-1 that 
> > re-instituted the sunset clause into 2009-1 and on April 8th the AC 
> > used (IMHO) a procedural trick to abandon his policy submission, 
> > claiming that 2009-1 is already reviewing whether to remove 
> a sunset 
> > clause from the NRPM or not.  Of course, all "reviewing" 
> has come up 
> > with NOT reintroducing the sunset clause, (a foregone
> > conclusion) so when 2009-1 is instituted it will have no sunset 
> > clause.
> >  
> >   That is very strong disincentive from the Board to use sunset 
> > clauses on this transfer market business.
> > It is also very strong disincentive to ever again bother with 
> > submitting any proposals at all.
> >  
> > Ted
> >
> >     
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >     *From:* Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
> >     *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2009 2:49 PM
> >     *To:* Ted Mittelstaedt
> >     *Cc:* John Sweeting; arin ppml
> >     *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: 
> Transfer Policy ?
> >     Revisedandforwarded to the Board
> >
> >     Ted,
> >
> >     I feel that a 3-year sunset would be bad policy given the
> >     immediate imlementation of 2008-6. I think 5 years, or 3 years
> >     after IANA exhaustion, would be appropriate, but I feel 
> that would
> >     be best discussed as a normal policy proposal. Anyone is welcome
> >     to introduce such a policy if you think it's important. It would
> >     most likely be on the agenda this fall along with 2009-1.   
> >
> >     -Scott
> >
> >     On May 4, 2009, at 2:40 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net
> >     <mailto:tedm at ipinc.net>> wrote:
> >
> >>     AC had no need to make further policy to deal with the impact
> >>     since 2008-6 had an
> >>     automatic sunset.  The entire point of the sunset in 2008-6 was
> >>     to see what the
> >>     unintended consequences would be and the only way to find them
> >>     out was to
> >>     implement the policy and see what happened.  I think 
> most people
> >>     expected that
> >>     after a year or so of 2008-6 that, armed with the knowledge
> >>     learned from the
> >>     experiment, we would write a much more comprehensive 
> policy that
> >>     would
> >>     supersede 2008-6.  The sunset was a deadline that 
> guaranteed this
> >>     would
> >>     happen.
> >>      
> >>     Ted
> >>
> >>         
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>         *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> >>         <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> >>         [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of 
> *John Sweeting
> >>         *Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2009 12:28 PM
> >>         *To:* Leo Bicknell; arin ppml
> >>         *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer
> >>         Policy ? Revisedandforwarded to the Board
> >>
> >>         A few more bits of information. One reason that 
> the AC moved
> >>         this proposal forward was that 2008-6 was already approved
> >>         and set to be implemented on June 1 so the issue 
> was already
> >>         there. I believe it was accepted that the AC would make
> >>         further review and come up with a proposal that would deal
> >>         with this impact. Also a point to note is that this policy
> >>         must be recertified at the next Public Policy Meeting since
> >>         it went through the Emergency Policy process.
> >>
> >>
> >>         On 5/4/09 3:00 PM, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org
> >>         <mailto:bicknell at ufp.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>             In a message written on Mon, May 04, 2009 at 12:21:01PM
> >>             -0400, Member Services wrote:
> >>             > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 29 
> April 2009 and
> >>             decided to send
> >>             > a revised version of 2009-1 to the Board for their
> >>             consideration:
> >>
> >>             This policy isn't in "last-call" per se, but given the
> >>             PDP process
> >>             I feel this is the only appropriate time for 
> me to make these
> >>             remarks.
> >>
> >>             I am a member of the Advisory Council, 
> speaking only for
> >>             myself.
> >>             During the various reviews and discussions the Advisory
> >>             Council
> >>             performs after the meeting a particular aspect of this
> >>             policy was
> >>             brought to (most of?) the AC's attention.  I would like
> >>             to bring
> >>             it to the community's attention as well.  I 
> did not write
> >>             notes on
> >>             this at the time, so I am doing this from memory.  If I
> >>             get it
> >>             wrong, I hope someone corrects me.
> >>
> >>             Billy has a /16, and he's using it for dial up services
> >>             which is
> >>             not paying the bills anymore.
> >>
> >>             Suzie wants a /16 for her hot new social networking
> >>             experiment.
> >>
> >>             Billy and Suzie find each other and agree to transfer
> >>             Billy's /16
> >>             to Suzie under the result of 2008-6 + 2009-1.
> >>
> >>             Billy goes to ARIN and says "Here's a /16, 
> please give it
> >>             to Suzie."
> >>
> >>             Suzie goes to ARIN and says, "I'm here for 
> Billy's /16".
> >>              In the
> >>             process, ARIN checks Suzie's justification, 
> and realizes
> >>             Suzie can
> >>             only justify a /18.
> >>
> >>             My understanding of the current interpretation 
> of 2008-6
> >>             + 2009-1
> >>             is that ARIN would give Suzie a /18, and keep a /18 and
> >>             /17 in the
> >>             free pool.
> >>
> >>             Billy has given up his /16, and Suzie only got 
> a /18 of it.
> >>
> >>             This ends up being an artifact of the legal requirement
> >>             that transfers
> >>             must occur through ARIN.  My own personal view on how
> >>             this would
> >>             work prior to finding this out was if Suzie couldn't
> >>             receive Billy's
> >>             /16 for any reason, Billy would retain the 
> /16.  Thus my
> >>             surprise,
> >>             and I'm wondering if this isn't a surprise for 
> others in the
> >>             community.
> >>
> >>             The recommended "fix", is that Suzie will be able to
> >>             "pre-qualify",
> >>             that is go to ARIN with all of her paperwork and get
> >>             approved for
> >>             a /18 before Billy and Suzie do a deal, so Suzie knows
> >>             this will
> >>             not happen.
> >>
> >>             I think this ends up being bad for three 
> distinct reasons:
> >>
> >>             Technically:
> >>
> >>               This causes deaggregation.  In the example 
> given a /16
> >>             was turned into
> >>               a /17 and two /18's.  However, because a /17 and /18
> >>             are both now in
> >>               the free pool they may be further subdivided 
> into /20's
> >>             (or smaller,
> >>               in some cases).
> >>
> >>             Business:
> >>
> >>               It is likely Billy and Suzie exchanged something of
> >>             value during this
> >>               transaction to make it happen.  Suzie has now
> >>             "overpaid" for her /18,
> >>               and is likely to demand a refund from Billy, or
> >>             challenge ARIN's
> >>               stance she can only justify a /18, or both.  
> Billy, of
> >>             course, isn't
> >>               going to want to give a refund as he is out 
> the entire
> >>             /16, but he may
> >>               also be unhappy at ARIN for only approving her for a
> >>             /18.  It sounds
> >>               like a good way to get all the parties in a 
> transaction
> >>             unhappy.
> >>
> >>               But also, it opens up an interesting fraud.  Alice
> >>             could go to Billy
> >>               and offer to buy the /16 for a hundred 
> million dollars.
> >>              Billy gets
> >>               so excited over the idea of retiring from the dial up
> >>             business that
> >>               he takes the deal.  Alice gives him a fake check, and
> >>             Billy fills out
> >>               the ARIN paperwork.
> >>
> >>               But you see, it is a fake check, and Alice had no
> >>             intention of ever
> >>               justifying the addresses to ARIN.  Billy figures out
> >>             two weeks later
> >>               the check is fake from the bank, but he's already
> >>             released the addresses
> >>               to ARIN and can't get them back.  What's Alice's
> >>             motivation?  Well,
> >>               her alter-ego Janice is sitting near the front of the
> >>             line of folks
> >>               waiting for space to end up in the free 
> pool.  Good for
> >>             her, a /16
> >>               just showed up.
> >>
> >>               But really this is all added risk, and what business
> >>             wants to
> >>               participate in a system with extra risk?
> >>
> >>             Politically:
> >>
> >>               This interpretation of the policy is likely to affect
> >>             the most
> >>               vulnerable the most.  The savvy folks who 
> are doing all
> >>             sorts of
> >>               transfers are reading this post on PPML now, and will
> >>             understand
> >>               the pitfalls of the system and work around 
> these issues
> >>             by doing
> >>               things like prequalifing.
> >>
> >>               This issue is much more likely to trip up the "one
> >>             time" casual
> >>               transferor or transferee who last delt with ARIN in
> >>             1999 and
> >>               doesn't do this as a day job anymore.  They are the
> >>             ones who will
> >>               accidently encounter this situation.
> >>
> >>             Personally, I think ARIN should not let this 
> happen.  The
> >>             simplest
> >>             fix I have come up with is to require Suzie to fill out
> >>             the recipient
> >>             paperwork first.  Billy should not be able to 
> designate a
> >>             recipient
> >>             without having some assurance that end of the 
> transaction
> >>             is already
> >>             approved from ARIN.  This could be as simple as Suzie
> >>             giving Billy
> >>             the ticket number under which Suzie was approved, and
> >>             Billy having
> >>             to provide that ticket number to release resources.  In
> >>             this way
> >>             an exact match could be insured, eliminating all of the
> >>             problems
> >>             listed above.
> >>
> >>             The AC obviously moved this proposal on; so 
> this was not
> >>             seen as a
> >>             show-stopper issue by the majority of the AC.  At a
> >>             minimum, I
> >>             wanted to get the issue out to the community so if
> >>             nothing is changed
> >>             the community is aware of the issue and will be able to
> >>             avoid it.
> >>             I would hope this would end up documented on 
> the ARIN web
> >>             site in
> >>             fairly clear language as well; but given the 
> accelerated
> >>             timetable
> >>             for this proposal I didn't want to wait for 
> that to occur
> >>             first.
> >>
> >>             --
> >>                    Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org
> >>             <mailto:bicknell at ufp.org> - CCIE 3440
> >>                     PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> >>             <http://www.ufp.org/%7Ebicknell/>
> >>
> >>             
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>             _______________________________________________
> >>             PPML
> >>             You are receiving this message because you are 
> subscribed to
> >>             the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> >>             <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
> >>                 
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     PPML
> >>     You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >>     the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> >>     <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> >>     experience any issues.
> >
> 




More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list