[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 141

Thu Apr 28 23:48:14 EDT 2011

Mike, thanks for this thought provoking post, and it certainly merits
further  discussion...
....*and if*  *'The market will be the best steward'' **under a* *'removing
the justification requirements for ALL transfers, legacy and
non-legacy' , *then
what would have been the difference in outcome of the MS/Nortel transfer?
Or, I guess I am looking for the advantage to be gained by ARIN and the
community over and beyond what actually transpired. ( I hope that makes
sense ) ?

rd
*
*

> On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:32 PM, "Mike Burns" <mike at sum.net> wrote:
>
> > If ARIN wants to change policy, may I suggest removing the justification
> requirements for ALL transfers, legacy and non-legacy?
> >
> > This would have the effect of removing the disincentive of legacy holders
> to sign an LRSA, would align ARIN with APNIC policy in advance of a global
> transfer policy, and would prevent ARIN from having to fudge a needs
> analysis in order to comply with policy, as I firmly believe happened with
> MS/Nortel.
> >
> > It would also increase whois reliability, as those who currently hold ip
> address space as the result of prior transfers could be fearless in
> approaching ARIN to have these transfers reflected accurately in whois.
> >
> > And those with addresses under RSA would not be afraid to sell their
> unused addresses through STS. Currently there is the fear that ARIN can
> audit the organization and take back unused addresses, so only those who can
> plausibly deny their lack of need feel brave enough to advertise to ARIN
> that they are not using their entire allocation.
> >
> > This discussion will no doubt mirror those of the past, and may expose
> some emotional response from prior participants, but I ask those
> participants to evaluate their current positions in the face of current
> realities.
> >
> > Reality shows that legacy holders have the right to transfer and sell
> address space without ARIN approval. Evidence of that fact is that the
> addresses Nortel sold were not originally registered to them, they were the
> possessions of Nortel's "predecessors in interest", bankruptcy parlance for
> Nortels prior acquisitions, who where the original legacy registrants. The
> court held that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer the addresses.
> How did they get that right, unless upon acquisition, Nortel and the
> acquired company processed an 8.2 transfer?  Can anybody point me to the
> existence of a relevant 8.2 transfer processed for Nortel?
> >
> > Reality today also includes the fact that the IPv6 transition failed, we
> have reached the IPv4 exhaust point without the option for an orderly
> transition, and other stakeholder communities like APNIC have decided that
> the best stewardship role going forward is to allow IPv4 addresses to be
> bought and sold without a justification restriction.
> >
> > With or without the Global Transfer Policy, this will be a worldwide
> market, and addresses will flow to where market restrictions are fewest. I
> noted this community's angst when the subject of returning addresses came
> up, and the proposal was to send them out of the region, back to IANA.
>  Don't you think the same effect will happen when the world compares the
> markets for IPv4 transfers? Addresses will flow to Asia, unless we change
> ARIN policies.
> >
> > ARIN's policies are impediments to good stewardship, preventing the open
> sales of IP address space and leaving unused address space on the sidelines
> that would otherwise be put to use. Paradoxically, ARIN's attempts at
> stewardship in the form of justification requirements serve to restrict the
> efficient use of these limited resources. What may have been appropriate in
> a time before exhaust, and before the legal precedents set in the MS/Nortel
> deal, is no longer appropriate.
> >
> > It's not so bad, free markets are designed to use scarce resources most
> efficiently, and freedom from regulation has been a major driver in the
> growth of the Internet. The market will be the best steward now, and ARIN's
> role should be the title agency whose overarching goal is to maintain
> accuracy in whois and uniqueness of registration.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.  I think you're advocating moving
> further/faster than most people in the ARIN community want to right
> now, but it does seem there is support for relaxing some restrictions.
>  I hope you'll stay tuned for more discussion of that after discussion
> of the current slate of draft policies dies down a bit, and continue
> contributing to those discussions.
>
> > And as a point of clarification, can a legacy holder who is not a member
> of ARIN, but who is registered with the PPML post in support of a proposal,
> or not?
>
> Yes.  The ARIN policy development process is open to anyone (not just
> address holders) who wants to subscribe and post to PPML, and anyone
> who would like to attend a public policy meeting (remote or in
> person).
>
> > If so, consider this a post in support of ALL of Benson's proposals.
>
> Noted.
>
> -Scott
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Py" <
> michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
> > To: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
> > Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:27 AM
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Microsoft receives court approval for transfer
> asagreed with ARIN
> >
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >>> If more than a handful actually feel that way to the point of
> >>> participating, then the policies are easily enough to change.
> >>> We have even made it so that remote participants in the Public
> >>> Policy meetings can readily ask questions and be counted in
> >>> the show of support for a given draft policy.
> >>
> >> Based on what data? You're taking the problem backwards. There is a
> >> widespread feeling that the non-public agreement between ARIN and
> >> Microsoft has some issues with the current policies. It is clear that
> >> the parties did not feel the need to talk to ARIN before the deal was
> >> done. How do you expect someone to write a draft policy based on
> >> suspicion, not on facts?
> >>
> >> A precedent has been created. A court of law has ruled that legacy
> >> prefixes were sellable assets (at least, in a bankruptcy context).
> >> Unless ARIN plans to appeal the ruling (seems difficult to me), it is
> >> necessary to implement new policies that take the new reality into
> >> account. Part of designing these new policies requires a better
> >> understanding of the problems that the current policies posed to the
> >> current situation, which in turn requires a better understanding of what
> >> legacy holders are willing to negotiate in return of staying within the
> >> ARIN framework and what will trigger them to bypass ARIN.
> >>
> >> Unless some details are provided, I predict that no significant change
> >> to policies will be made in time for the next large, public trade
> >> occurs, which will put you in the hot seat again and that time you won't
> >> be able to say that you did not see it coming.
> >>
> >> Michel.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 141
> ******************************************
>

-- 

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
**1-784 498 8277<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
*
*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110429/d32a4b0a/attachment.htm>