[arin-ppml] Poor response - OK it's Saturday but still, really - was:Re: ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP address Transfers

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Sat Apr 16 12:28:13 EDT 2011


In the blog you say:

"...the ARIN community encourages a limited *market-based* approach to 
improving utilization of IP number resources, including developing the 
specified transfer policy ..."

You do not repudiate the assertion that ARIN allowed the
Microsoft holdings to be registered under an LRSA, even though
doing so would completely undermine Milton's assertion far more
effectively than your post.  All you had to do is put up a 1
sentence reply that the Microsoft transferred holdings are under
RSA not LRSA and be done with it.  The fact is your response merely
serves to support his assertion since it side steps the central
assertion of his post - he is just going to make hay hammering you on
his inevitable rebuttal.

Furthermore, nobody on this list has ever stated support for ANY KIND of 
"limited market based approach" to improving utilization of IPv6 
addresses.  Also, it isn't true that the community supports this for 
IPv4.  The community has been divided on this for a long time as many people
have stated that they felt that encouraging IPv4 reclamation would
harm IPv6 deployment.  The fact that the ARIN Board had to ram through
an IPv4 transfer instead of the community generating one speaks
volumes.  And you can go back years before that into the list archives
and see that there were initiatives discussed and shot down for 
encouraging "improving utilization of IPv4 resources" ie: Reclamation.

I also noted your statement:

"... This is a perfect example of how private-sector, community-based 
leadership can evolve Internet policy as needed to adapt to changing 

This statement IMPLIES that private-to-private transfers of IPv4 
addressing are going to be a PERMANENT fixture of the Internet, rather
than a TEMPORARY measure needed just for a few years to get everyone
over to IPv6.  There is, IMHO, even less community support for this
than for IPv4 transfers as a bridge to IPv6.

Lastly, I think that it is deplorable that your response to
Milton was on another blog and not HERE.  The proper thing to do would
have been to place a response here and a single response on his
blog referring readers to this list.  Years from now when people
are reviewing the archives of this list, how do you even know
that his blog will still be available?


On 4/16/2011 7:14 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> Of course, the devil is in the details, as they say.  If you don't mind, I'd like to ask for additional clarification.  There are some questions raised by http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/4/15/4796200.html
> Benson -
>    I will not comment on matters specific to any particular customer's request,
>    but have replied to Mr. Mueller's blog to the extent possible. The link is:
>    http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/4/15/4796200.html#1437563
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list