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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:58 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 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.
>

Trying to tell us that technology limitations = hoarding is not helpful.

> Thus equating hoarding with fraud is incorrect. They are distinct phenomena.

And inaccurate and even out of context. Let's not play games with
companies reputations here even if there is specific, hard, evidence.
This isn't the place for it. This is the policy list. Not the
accusations list.

I agree with Leo. In the interest of cooking policy, we don't need to use names.