[arin-ppml] NRPN 8.2 & 2.3
Rudolph Daniel
rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Sat Apr 30 21:48:54 EDT 2011
It would seem clear to me that at the very least, NRPN 8.2 and 8.3 requires
rephrasing. Is that also the view of the ppml?
rd
>> for such resources, as a single aggregate", not that a single
> >> aggregate be transferred.
> >
> > ... I do not believe that Stephen's interpretation below matches the
> > meaning or the intent of the policy as I understand it. ...
>
> I don't think it does either, for the record. However, this points out
> how bad wording has left us in a situation where we're not sure /what/
> the policy text means--much less whether we agree with it.
>
> > I do agree that your interpretation would be a syntactically and
> > grammatically valid construction, but, I believe it is contextually
> > nonsensical and not the intended meaning of the words.
> >
> > If anyone has a suggestion for making the actual intent more clear, I
> > am open to suggestions and would support making an editorial
> > correction for clarity.
>
> If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to
> allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent. As
> it stands, though, I don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent
> well enough to try.
>
> S
>
> --
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/ab367759/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
> Size: 3646 bytes
> Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/ab367759/attachment-0001.bin
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:28:39 -0400
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Call for a study & survey to obtain necessary
> information for policy development
> Message-ID: <BANLkTi=0i9isaCTnsTQC9NO=PX2RAcSt1A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> > ? contains a specific call for ARIN to charter a study including
> > ? a survey in order to obtain additional information to assist in
> > ? policy development.
> >
> > ? I've not seen any discussion of this suggestion; would it be
> > ? possible to get feedback from the otherwise shy participants
> > ? on the PPML mailing list?
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> >> what we should do is
> >> charter ARIN to conduct a comprehensive study and:
> >>
> >> - Conduct a survey of the public at large, PPML users, full members,
> >> resource holders, and the AC to gain a clear understanding of
> >> sentiment for or against an open market.
> >> - Determine how many companies actually have IPv6 migration plans and
> >> ascertain road blocks, either legitimate or financial, that are
> >> preventing migration.
> >> - Would resource holders support a model that allowed ARIN to take a
> >> small commission on resource sales and then discontinue the practice
> >> of charging an annual fee to its members who are not buying and
> >> selling resources.
>
> These seem like they could be determined by survey.
>
>
> >> - In the survey, ask IPv4 resource holders to anonymously disclose
> >> their true utilization rates and determine if companies are hoarding
> >> resources either in hopes of future resale or to cover an arbitrary
> >> future need.
> >> - Determine the amount of participants that would come forward if told
> >> they could resell their space on the open market and ultimately
> >> determine how much unneeded space is being locked away in loosely
> >> justified allocations.
> >> - Determine if resource holders would be encouraged to tighten up
> >> internal policies and free up more space if there were a fair market
> >> value assigned to their space.
>
> These strike me as very difficult to determine by anything approaching
> a statistically valid survey. I would want to see a detailed
> methodology proposed before agreeing either that money should be spent
> conducting the survey or that the results would have merit to
> contribute to the policy debate.
>
>
> >> - Determine the economic impact. Would resource holders be better off
> >> selling their resources to more affluent companies who would be able
> >> to put the space to better use? Might there be a host of struggling
> >> small businesses who would like to put their /17 - /21 on the balance
> >> sheet? Are there companies that would purchase IPv4 space at a premium
> >> if allowed to do so?
>
> This would require a cost analysis of a great many factors, only some
> of which have been touched on in the listed survey. Given the abject
> lack of use of cost analysis in the Internet industry, it would
> require at least three independent cost analyses and considerable
> subsequent debate on and validation of the methodologies...
>
> Start here: http://www.sceaonline.net/
>
> Disclaimer: my father is a crotchety old cost analyst so I get a
> regular earful about this stuff.
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:39:08 -0400
> From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>, arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Analogies
> Message-ID: <BANLkTimzAx7_S=oaHiEB2epuXmMiBc136w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > I will point out that ARIN is the only registry that did not start
> > charging their legacy holders shortly after coming into existence.
> >
> > APNIC, RIPE, AfriNIC, and LACNIC all charge their legacy holders
> > annual fees to the best of my knowledge.
> >
> > I do not know whether a contract was required in any or all cases,
> > but, the fee portion of the equation is unique to ARIN to the best
> > of my knowledge.
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> I will suggest that an attempt by ARIN to charge $100/year under a
> contract simplified to, "We agree to keep your whois data and RDNS
> delegations intact as is for one year increments until either of us
> choose to cancel this contract" would meet with at most mild
> resistance from the legacy registrants. It would also, IMHO, provide
> an excellent way to weed out the abandoned registrations.
>
> This hasn't been done in part because we, in this forum, have insisted
> that legacy registrants should not be invited into the fold under such
> terms.
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:43:29 -0400
> From: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at sprunk.org>, "Owen DeLong"
> <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP
> addressTransfers
> Message-ID: <7B6110E30D2E40CDA7E10BCB85E290B7 at video>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> >If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to
> allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent. As it
> stands, though, I >don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent well
> enough to try.
>
> >S
>
> Steve,
>
> Here is why I call BS on the claim that these transfers comply with policy:
>
> "Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by
> organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need
> for such resources, as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they
> can justify under current ARIN policies."
>
> That is the text. The comma between resources and "as a single aggregate"
> can be read to cause the "as a single aggregate" clause to apply to either
> the verb phrase "be received" or the verb phrase "can demonstrate."
>
> But how would anybody demonstrate a need for multiple netblocks anyway?
> Isn't the need ALWAYS determined as a single aggregate?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Sprunk
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 8:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP
> addressTransfers
>
>
> On 16-Apr-11 02:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> On 15-Apr-11 19:00, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> The adopted policies (if they are using the "relatively new policy"
> as alluded to in the release) require the transfer of *a single aggregate*.
>
>
> Not quite. NRPM 8.3 only requires the receiver "demonstrate the need
> for such resources, as a single aggregate", not that a single aggregate be
> transferred.
>
> ... I do not believe that Stephen's interpretation below matches the
> meaning or the intent of the policy as I understand it. ...
>
> I don't think it does either, for the record. However, this points out
> how bad wording has left us in a situation where we're not sure what the
> policy text means--much less whether we agree with it.
>
>
> I do agree that your interpretation would be a syntactically and
> grammatically valid construction, but, I believe it is contextually
> nonsensical and not the intended meaning of the words.
>
>
> If anyone has a suggestion for making the actual intent more clear, I am
> open to suggestions and would support making an editorial correction for
> clarity.
>
> If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to
> allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent. As it
> stands, though, I don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent well
> enough to try.
>
> S
>
>
> --
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/2d387170/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 176
> ******************************************
>
--
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/20110430/b9a726ce/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list