[arin-ppml] Prop-151 -- Still a bad idea (was a thread hijack of prop-156)

Wed Aug 24 17:16:57 EDT 2011

So APNIC has abandoned needs basis -- that's still ~18% of all
non-unicast space which is still fairly significant.

Jeff

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>> I would like to point out that some of the comments relating to 156 involve issues of "fairness" in terms of applying less stringent standards to the proposed transfers than applied to ARIN members, and others involve issues of perceived ARIN bullying from its position of strength on this issue.
>>
>> Both issues would dissolve, as would so many others, with the adoption of my proposal 151 to treat legacy and non-legacy addresses fairly by removing the outdated and unnecessary needs requirement on IPv4 transfers.
>>
>
> Needs-basis is neither outdated nor unnecessary. APNIC stands alone as the only RIR to abandon needs basis so far.
>
> I do not believe that encouraging ARIN to follow suit improves the situation.
>
>> Given the situation, we are virtually mandating transfers (of legacy space at least) of address space outside the RIR system entirely.
>> The resultant irrelevance of Whois data will drive the acceptance of private registries.
>>
>
> Not really, no. Will some of those occur? Perhaps. Probably even. They aren't without risk. I'm OK with that.
>
> I don't believe that they will occur in large enough volume to render whois irrelevant and I am not convinced that private
> registries would do anything other than further devolve the situation.
>
> If you want an example of the chaos and dysfunction that ensues when you remove rational controls, just look at
> the domain name system and it's devolution into anyone can have a TLD for the right price.
>
>> In this article, http://techliberation.com/2011/08/15/trading-ipv4-addresses-starts-making-internet-elders-nervous/ ,Prof. Mueller relates a conversation with the broker who handled the Microsoft/Nortel IPv4 sale.  That broker mentions a point which is entirely relevant to my proposal, which is the fact that of all the 38 (!) IP blocks included in the sale, not a single one had correct Whois data.
>>
>
> I don't see how the fact that the organization(s) failed to meet their obligations to maintain their registrations is relevant or makes any sort of case in favor of your proposal. The community sets rules. Organizations may or may not follow those rules. I don't see how the fact that some organization(s) failed to follow the rules is indicative that the rules should be eliminated.
>
> That's like making the argument that because some people commit armed robbery, we should remove the laws against armed robbery. This makes no sense to me.
>
>> As IPv6 remains stillborn, IPv4 address values will increase.
>
> IPv6 was not, is not, and does not remain stillborn.
>
>> As the values increase there will be conflict over ownership rights.
>> Those conflicts will be settled in court eventually, and Whois will come to be publicly displayed as erroneous and irrelevant.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
>
> Could whois be better? Yes. There are multiple efforts underway to improve the quality of data in whois and I have supported policies and suggestions to encourage ARIN to put more resources into improving the quality of data in whois.
>
> However, the current error rate in whois is far from irrelevant and there is, frankly, absolutely no better alternative available at this time.
>
>> Owners will demand a more reliable registration system to ensure their rights are recognized, and network operators will feel more protected by a registry which backs their entries with chain-of-custody documents.
>
> First, IP addresses themselves are not property. The registration system is entirely reliable and registrants who work within it are guaranteed that their rights are recognized. This theory that integers can somehow was amusing to me until I started seeing some of the current software patent wars unfold. It does appear that the courts have become so dysfunctional that you could very well see a day when everyone has to pay someone a royalty every time they use a 5. However, at that point, we have much bigger problems than whois accuracy to contend with.
>
> Until the courts become that much more dysfunctional than they already are, I think we should, instead, focus on the current reality. That is that any inaccuracies in whois are the result of resource holders failing to register their current data. The process for updating your data is relatively simple and painless. It costs nothing. As such, any resource holder who feels that their rights have been supplanted by whois inaccuracy has noone to blame but themselves.
>
>> By maintaining a needs requirement for transfers, we are on the path to a dramatic change in Internet governance, which we can avoid by refusing to continue policies which work in restraint of the free trading of IPv4 addresses.
>>
>
> Abandoning the needs basis would be a dramatic change in internet governance, so, I'm really not sure how you can claim that we can avoid a dramatic change in internet governance by making one.
>
>> I applaud Scott's efforts to make a bad situation a little better, but suggest that the problems he addresses in his rationale would be mooted by acceptance of Prop 151.
>>
>
> They'd also be mooted by adoption of APNIC Prop-096 which is, IMHO, a far better solution and would work well with 2011-1.
>
>> I guess this is a thread hijack, but there is still time for expressions of support for 151 as it has not been abandoned.
>>
>
> Yes, you are correct on both counts. Lots of time since neither of them is likely to be on the agenda for adoption in Philadelphia.
>
> There is also time to support APNIC proposal 96 which is going up for discussion in Busan next week and time to support 2011-1 which will be up for adoption discussion in Philadelphia.
>
> Owen
>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>> To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
>> Cc: "ARIN" <info at arin.net>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
>>> Support, but I would support more with a 12-month justification and it would
>>> be better with no justification requirement at all.
>>
>> Thanks.  I'd like to hear input from more folks on what this
>> requirement should look like.
>>
>>> This change will allow some Asian companies to participate in legitimate
>>> transfers with Whois updates, who would otherwise have to take the risks of
>>> an unbooked sale.
>>> Would this policy be consistent with the ideas about regional registries
>>> that was discussed on the list earlier in reference to ICP-2?
>>
>> Yes, because we're transferring the addresses (under certain
>> conditions) to another RIR for them to administer in their region.
>>
>>> Is this change in 8.3 an endrun around the concept of regionality?
>>
>> I don't believe so.
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ARIN" <info at arin.net>
>>> To: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 2:46 PM
>>> Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
>>>
>>>
>>>> ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
>>>>
>>>> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
>>>> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy
>>>> Development Process.
>>>>
>>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
>>>> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
>>>> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
>>>> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
>>>> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>>>>
>>>> The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
>>>> particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
>>>> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
>>>> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>>>>
>>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>>>>
>>>> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
>>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>>>
>>>> Mailing list subscription information can be found
>>>> at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Communications and Member Services
>>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>>
>>>> ## * ##
>>>>
>>>> ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
>>>>
>>>> Proposal Originator: Scott Leibrand
>>>>
>>>> Date: 23 August 2011
>>>>
>>>> Proposal type: Modify
>>>>
>>>> Policy term: Permanent
>>>>
>>>> Policy statement:
>>>>
>>>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>>>
>>>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may
>>>> be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in
>>>> part, for transfer:
>>>>
>>>> + under RSA, to specified organizational recipient(s) within the ARIN
>>>> region that can demonstrate the need for such resources, in the exact
>>>> amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>>>>
>>>> + to another RIR, for transfer to a specified recipient in that RIR's
>>>> service region who demonstrates plans to deploy the resources for the
>>>> justified purpose within 3 months, as long as the request meets the
>>>> policy requirements of both RIRs, and the recipient (and any
>>>> organizations to which they have transferred or reassigned space) can
>>>> show efficient utilization of all prior allocations, assignments, and
>>>> transfers according to the current policy requirements of both RIRs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rationale:
>>>>
>>>> A number of RIRs already allow IPv4 address transfers within their
>>>> service regions. Given that IPv4 address demand is concentrated in
>>>> certain rapidly growing regions, whereas IPv4 addresses that can be
>>>> made available to supply that demand are concentrated in regions with
>>>> more historical IPv4 deployment, it would be most efficient for
>>>> addresses to be transferred from regions with more supply to regions
>>>> with more demand. If this is not allowed, prices for IPv4 addresses
>>>> in high-demand regions will be higher, raising overall costs,
>>>> encouraging address holders to transfer addresses outside the RIR
>>>> system, and/or encouraging large corporations to acquire addresses in
>>>> regions with more supply and then use them in regions with more
>>>> demand. It would be better for the overall Internet industry to allow
>>>> inter-RIR transfers to organizations with demonstrated need for
>>>> addressing for immediate deployment needs.
>>>>
>>>> This policy text would be intended to replace draft policy 2011-1 ARIN
>>>> Inter-RIR Transfers.
>>>>
>>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions