[arin-ppml] Please try the strong arm tactics first - was Re: ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 26, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Warren Johnson
> <warren at wholesaleinternet.com> wrote:
>> ================================
>> Ipv4 depletion has the potential to reshape the entire Internet; and I don't
>> mean by changing to ipv6.  If IPv4 becomes valuable property and people
>> can't get what they want, they're going to do very naughty things.
>> Remember, the corporation exists to make money for its shareholders so all
>> they're going to do is consider the potential legal costs associated with
>> litigating the RIR if they're caught and factor that into the cost of what
>> they're doing.  I do not envy the registries.  They're in a very tough spot.
> 
> If that actually happens...  the RIR community will have to deal with
> the eventual reality of  government investigations and
> intervention,  specifically,  possibly a run-in with congress,
> the ITU, FCC, etc.   Which would hurt the entire community, not just
> the legacy holders and ARIN, whose policymaking process would be
> co-opted,  and  there would be other unpredictable outcomes.
> 
I think assuming that the RIR policy process would be co-opted in
such an event is speculative at best. I agree that it will hurt the
entire internet (See my blog post at theipv6experts about how
cooperation is key).

However, the RIRs (and ARIN in particular) have not been operating
in a vacuum or without some understanding of government and
the likely outcomes of such suits.

> Conflicts of that nature with sufficiently naughty things being done
> by major players would be proof that the industry failed to self-regulate,
> necessitating that the government respond to the crisis by coming in to
> "help" as in imposing some number assignment policy to force participants
> to behave.
> 
Conflicts of that nature that result from certain bodies violating the
"regulations" put in place by the community may result in government
responding by giving those regulations the force of law. They may
respond in other ways. Predicting what they will do is an imprecise
activity at best. However, I think that if the government sees a consistent
policy framework that works if people follow it, they are likely to do
minimal tampering with the policy framework and work, instead,
to apply that framework more forcefully.

> Since the internet has been elevated to the status of  "important" for
> national security purposes,  should naughty things involve IP hijacking
> happen, endusers will cry out to their representatives for help, when
> they cannot access their Facebook,  because someone's doing naughty
> things hijacked its IPs;   the larger the disruption caused by any addressing
> misbehvaior; the greater the danger,  if  a conflict with ARIN is somehow
> involved....
> 
Indeed, the lack of cooperation will be damaging to all. The internet
works because it is a cooperative anarchy and because through independent
decisions of local network operators, miscreants tend to be regarded as
damage and routed around. If local network operators stop de-routing
miscreants, bad things will happen. If cooperation breaks down,
bad things will happen. IP Address disputes are not the only threat
of this nature. Peering politics also threaten the internet's ability
to operate autonomous from burdensome regulation. Some larger
players seem to want to bring such burdensome regulation to the
internet. Indeed, that seemed to be the common ground/goal of both L3 and
Comcast in some recent spats over who should pay what for
mutual connectivity to each other's customers.

However, such regulation will be difficult to apply to the internet as a
whole (since it traverses virtually every jurisdiction on the planet and
because it isn't a single entity, but, instead, a collection of independently
owned and operated networks using a common protocol) and
virtually impossible to do in a way that is non-destructive to what we
currently expect in terms of capabilities from the internet.

> 
> In the face of the risk of possible regulation,  the RIRs would
> desperately need to establish their legitimacy, to continue to
> exist at all, which means using all reasonable means necessary to
> ensure an RSA or anything else required to enforce its policies
> applies to all resources  under its stewardship.
> 
I think that the combination of documents from DoC to ICANN and
between ICANN and the NRO/ASO and thus the RIRs does a pretty
good job to establish this legitimacy. Getting more legacy holders
under RSA would also be useful, but, I doubt the RIRs will have
trouble being recognized by any regulator as the most legitimate
address authority currently in existence, whether they choose to
continue with that system or not.

> 
> Using strong arm tactics FIRST is not really rational;  if the objective
> is to maximize stability of the internet,  the minimal "force" necessary
> should be used to get as many 'out of good standing' resource
> assignments as possible under  proper RSAs..
> 
It really depends. I think a more accurate version of the request
would be "Use strong arm tactics before simply allowing the
legacy holders to steam-roll the policy process and create
a speculative secondary IP market with independent registries
not subject to any community driven address policy or process".

Viewed in that light, I think that strong arm tactics are, indeed,
more appropriate than the stated alternative.

> Strong arm tactics, if considered at all, should only be considered
> in an emergency, after other options have been exhausted
> 
In general, I agree with you, but, in many ways, prop-136 looks
like an opposing strong-arm tactic by those that want to establish
registries that are not permitted under ICP-2 and would be contrary
to the community's best interest IMHO.

The proposal author claims that is not his intent, and that he has
no such relationship. I'm inclined to believe him. Nonetheless,
the proposed policy would accomplish that result even if that is
not the actual intent.

>> Somewhere is a compromise.  But first you have to open your eyes and see the
>> brick coming at you.

Let's try to keep this civil and not start throwing bricks.

Owen