[arin-ppml] Do we have a fundamental conflict in the regional goalsfor number resource management?

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Fri Apr 29 12:27:18 EDT 2011

I think the Venn diagram of goals does intersect between those under 
agreement  and those not under agreement in the area of needs justification. 
Eliminating justification for all would have the following advantages to 
both sets of address holders.

1. RSA holders could freely advertise available space without the threat of 
a section 12 audit.
2. Legacy holders would be more likely to sign the LRSA because they could 
maintain their right to sell to anybody.

Resulting in more addresses available for transfer, more legacy space under 
agreement, and a leveling of the playing fields between legacy and 
non-legacy holders in the transfer market.

And more trust for ARIN and more validity to whois, and more compliance with 
APNIC, and more compliance with new legal precedents.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Michel Py" <michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:13 PM
Subject: [arin-ppml] Do we have a fundamental conflict in the regional 
goalsfor number resource management?

> On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:48 PM, Michel Py wrote:
>>> That is likely to vary significantly by legacy holders,
>>> so we need to hear from them on this matter.
>> I think you are missing the point here. I know a few legacy holders, and
>> just the fact of acknowledging ARIN's existence is a problem for them.
>> I'm writing this with one of your other postings in mind, so read below.
>>> Can we actually have *any* multi-stakeholder, private sector led,
>>> bottom-up policy development system for technical coordination of
>>> identifiers at the same time as we have parties presently that:
>>> 1) have no existing contractual requirements to participate in the
>>> system, but 2) presently hold number resources in their belief as
>>> personal property?
>> This is the challenge at hand, indeed. However, I wish you have not
>> presented this on the form of a question. If you doubt it can be done,
>> you set yourself up for failure. In your mouth, I accept nothing short
>> of cheering the troops before the battle, for total victory. Please come
>> to your senses; nothing has killed more soldiers than the general
>> publicly doubting that victory can be achieved.
>> Please give my last paragraph some thought.
> Michel -
>  I have given your email quite some thought, and after careful
>  consideration, I do believe the concern that I expressed was
>  most appropriate to pose as a question...
>  This is not a battle; our mission isn't to march over one segment of
>  the community for the sake of another.  The purpose of the discussion
>  is for parties to gain better understanding of mutual goals, and find
>  areas where everyone can work together towards the goal of successful
>  administration of the number resources to the benefit of all.
>  For decades, the Internet community has expressed overall sentiment
>  towards self-governance in the form of open, multi-stakeholder
>  bottom-up policy development (i.e. a stark contrast to having
>  a top-down, government-led regulatory regime for the Internet.)
>  To maintain this self-governed approach, it is necessary to have
>  inclusive policy development and welcome everyone with number
>  resources to also participate in the actual policy development
>  for these resources.  It's also a goal that the administration of
>  such policies be based on a set of voluntarily entered agreements,
>  therefore allowing normal contractual mechanisms and protections
>  for interactions between the parties.
>  If a segment of those with number resources find acknowledging the
>  very existence of any policies constraining their use of resources
>  to be an anathema, then we literally cannot have a system which both
>  provides consistent management of number resources while also
>  depending on the voluntary entry into contracts for administration.
>  Requiring governmental imposition of such administration might solve
>  the conflict, but would be contrary to our goals if it results in
>  loss of the self-governance approach itself.
>  So, the Venn diagram of goals appears to have no common intersection,
>  and hence my question to the community regarding which goal to set
>  aside:  consistent administration of policy, the anathema of some
>  to having any policy constraints over the use of "their" resources,
>  or avoidance of governmental intervention?
>  This is not an hypothetical question: one could easily argue that
>  the consistent administration of policy for IPv4 isn't a major
>  issue because it's a transitory problem with the move to IPv6.
>  Such a view would allow us to accept operating absent any policy
>  regime for those who don't voluntarily want to participate.  On the
>  other hand, if you hold that consistent administration of policy is
>  important for protection of traditional number resource management
>  goals (i.e. registration, conservation and aggregation), then the
>  problem becomes how to achieve such in the presence of those
>  determined to remain outside the system and without turning to
>  a governmental regulatory solution.
>  My purpose of asking the question was to raise this potential of a
>  fundamental conflict between the goals, and to get some discussion
>  started in the community about how this should best be resolved.
> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President & 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