[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks

John Santos JOHN at egh.com
Tue Feb 15 08:49:42 EST 2011

Resending my whinge because the mailing list software may have eaten it...

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, someone wrote:

> The email to which you refer was not included, but I'd be curious to see 
> it...

It was listed as an attachment when I sent it.  Maybe it got filtered
by the mailing list software?  I'll try to attach it again.

Extracted the plain-text version and inserted inline here:


Mr. Santos,


Please accept my apologies for the intrusion to your recent posting
regarding the proposed new ARIN Policy titled No Volunteer Services on
Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks. While on the surface it may appear to
be a negative proposal for legacy holders of IPv4 number blocks, I can
assure you it is actually quite the opposite for it frees them once and for
all from ARIN's illusionary claims. We, as the first commercial IP Address
Internet Registry which only provides post-allocation services to legacy
block holders, are fully supportive of this proposal. If you have any
questions please contact me and we can either discuss this or continue a


If you are interested, our services are clearly provided for at


Best regards, 


Peter Thimmesch



+1 703.871.4822 (o)

+1 202.957.5805 (m)


Description: Description: Description: Description: depository_PPTGRPHCLOGO


1775 Wiehle Avenue

Suite 400

Reston, VA 20190 USA



There was also an html version and a graphic which I think was just a

> On 2/14/2011 6:30 PM, John Santos wrote:
> > Shortly after I made my initial response to prop 133, I recieved this
> > email.
> >
> > 1) Do I understand it correctly?  Are these people offering to sell me
> > the RDNS and WHOIS service I currently receive from ARIN for free?
> >
> > 2) Is this proposal a Trojan Horse for an attempt to unilateraly
> > privitize ARIN?
> >
> > 3) Is it an attempt to get an unregulated (i.e. not need-based) market
> > in under the radar?
> >
> > Is the "illusionary claim" it purports to free me from the prohibition
> > against selling my (unroutable, most likely) Class C to the highest
> > bidder?  Not that I would do that in any case, because I'm pretty sure
> > when I obtained it from the InterNIC in 1993, it was clear that the
> > assignment was based on need and if we didn't need it any more, we
> > were supposed to return it.
> >
> > In any case, it would cost in the 5 digits for us to renumber
> > and coordinate with all our network partners (firewalls, VPNs, etc.)
> > not to mention future costs due to no longer having globally unique
> > address space, selling is a definite non-starter even if was otherwise
> > acceptable.
> >
> > 4) Is this email a violation of the ARIN PPML acceptable use policy
> > due to being SPAM?
> >

John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list