[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers -Shepherd's Inquiry

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Thu Jun 23 12:01:57 EDT 2011


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Mike Burns
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:49 PM
> To: Owen DeLong; Scott Leibrand
> Cc: arin ppml; Robert E. Seastrom
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers -
> Shepherd's Inquiry
> >
> > First, the current proposals are not no-ops. They happen to exclude
> > APNIC unless APNIC happens to change their policy. I see this as
> > the right thing to do. I will strenuously oppose any policy that favors
> > the
> > elimination of needs basis and the abandonment of our stewardship in
> > that direction.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> Owen,
> You know there are Asian companies with justifiable need who will be
> prevented from accessing the mother lode of available address space in
> simply because you believe that your notion of stewardship is superior to
> the APNIC community's.

I know that too, and I also know that if my family needs food and another family needs food I am feeding mine first, then if I have any food left over I will share.  I don't see the other RIR's making great strides to prepare to share any IP space they have globally.

> Basically you are holding those companies' justifiable need hostage to the
> fears you have about market speculators and the like.
> Nevermind that there is no evidence of that speculation happening and
> nevermind that APNIC has a real, honest need, and nevermind that ARIN has
> the benefit of huge legacy allocations.

Good! Hurrah!  If there is going to be no speculation then we can abandon the whole IP market thing.  

> And nevermind that the stewards at APNIC debated and decided that their
> primary stewardship of Whois demanded changes to their needs policies for
> transfers.
> The effect of your strenous opposition will be the prevention of unused
> addresses being put to use by those with a justifiable need, just so you
> can
> prevent anybody without a justifiable need from possibly getting space.
> So you are standing between those with a need and those with unused space
> and preventing the transfer. Now that's stewardship.
> I mean, wouldn't you even consider dropping the needs language from the
> proposal and relying on ARIN staff to discern nefarious practices and not
> agree to the transfer?
> Do you really think there are wild horses worth of speculators just
> waiting
> for the door to open a crack, then rush in to drain all available space
> before the ARIN staff knew what was happening?
> I really think that's a stretch. Yet you are using that fear to
> effectively
> block all transfers to APNIC.
> And to say the current proposals "happen to exclude" APNIC is disingenous.
> The language we are debating could just as easily say "No APNIC members
> need
> apply" and have the same effect.
> And as usual, you ignore the threat to the registration function of
> standing
> between willing buyers and willing sellers, with willing network operators
> ready to carry the traffic waiting in the wings.
> I know you will point the finger at the APNIC stewards and insist they
> revert to a needs test, but you are effectively using the justifiable but
> unmet need of the APNIC members as blackmail to force them to effect that
> change.
> Regards,
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> 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