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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

William and Leo,


  Referring to specific names
of companies in a positive way is not usually the problem in the
generic kind of discussions (like this one) that so often split off
from the policy being discussed.

  The problem is making a negative statement that is not provable.
Hoarding is an unproven negative term, and use of such unproven
negative terms in conjunction with a specific company should be avoided.

  But, here is where the politically correct movement can help solve
the problem.  Instead of use of the term "hoarder" may I suggest
the politically correct term:

  "negative-deficiency"

  So, instead of saying that Wonkulating Gronkulator is an
IP address hoarder, you can say:

  Wonkulating Gronkulator is a negatively-deficient IP address consumer.

Problem solved! ;-)

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:58 PM
> To: arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy 
> - Revisedandforwarded to the Board
> 
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> > In a message written on Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:14:29PM 
> -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> >> Verizon is hoarding addresses. They requested and acquired 
> millions 
> >> of
> >
> > Please refrain from referring to companies by name when discussing 
> > policy.  Generally it's not necessary, generic terms like 
> "a wireless 
> > company", "a DSL company", or "a cable company" work just 
> fine to set 
> > a frame of reference.
> 
> Leo,
> 
> I respectfully disagree with your assessment.
> 
> Ted said: "There's been implications of hoarding on this list 
> and in the last meeting but I have only seen a single allegation."
> 
> That's a fair complaint. Who are these unnamed hoarders we're 
> so worried about and why isn't current policy stopping them? 
> The question calls for specificity. Proof by example that the 
> hoarders exist.
> 
> While you're right that I don't have internal company 
> knowledge, I do have one of the vendor's phones using one of 
> the hoarded IP addresses and I've done enough testing with it 
> to confirm that its only capable of initiating connections 
> outbound to the Internet, the key criteria for a 
> NAT-compatible device. Inbound connections are blocked, not 
> by the device but by the vendor's upstream firewall.
> 
> 
> > If you do want to make a specific claim of wrong-doing, 
> then using the 
> > mailing list is absolutely the wrong way to report it, use 
> the form at 
> > https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/index.html.
> 
> A big part of my point was that many of the obvious and 
> egregious cases of hoarding are specifically *not* instances 
> of fraud. My favorite vendor is hoarding, apparently in 
> meticulous compliance with all applicable policies.
> 
> Thus equating hoarding with fraud is incorrect. They are 
> distinct phenomena.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: 
> <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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 if you experience any issues.
> 
>