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

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue May 5 19:24:19 EDT 2009


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.


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