[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 71, Issue 2

Sun May 1 13:03:15 EDT 2011

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

"arin-ppml-request at arin.net" wrote:
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
        arin-ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        arin-ppml-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        arin-ppml-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress
      policy pitched directly to ICANN (McTim)
   2. Re: If we would pursue a transfer policy without needs
      justification... (John Curran)
   3. Re: ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other      contacts        to act
      through a "blacklist") (John Curran)
   4. Re: ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other contacts to act
      through a "blacklist") (McTim)
   5. Re: Analogies (Arturo Servin)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 07:59:06 +0300
From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
To: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>, arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of
        interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
Message-ID: <BANLkTinopAS=Piknqfh1EO92eB-iusy4gQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
>> What higher organizational level?
>
>> The Number Resource Organization and Address Supporting Organization roles
>> at the IANA are the collective committee of representatives from the 5 RIRs.
>> >Global address policy results from the same policy being passed by all RIRs
>> and then ratified (a formality) at the IANA level. The "higher level
>> organization" is >completely and directly controlled by the RIRs, as it
>> should be.
>
>> Owen
>
> I think you misconstrue the relationship and have the tail wagging the dog.
> ICANN/IANA is the entity that delegated the roles you describe, the NRO and
> ASO roles, to committees which are run by representatives from the RIRs.

representatives from the regional communities, not the RIRs
themselves.  In Africa, for example, we recently elected a ASO
Councillor who was not previously an active member of the RIR
community, but an active member of the larger Internet
Governance/technical and policy community.

I would dipute both your and Owen characterisations.  The fox is
neither guarding the henhouse, nor is the ASO AC "completely and
directly controlled by the RIRs".

>
> "The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (the IANA), as part of the
> administrative functions associated with management of the Internet Protocol
> (IP) address space, is responsible for evaluating applications for approval
> of new Regional Internet Registries. "
>
> All I am saying is that although this is not a new "regional" registry, it
> is a registry which could compete with the RIRs, and why not have IANA

I think you mean ICANN here.

> decide, since the representatives of the RIRs may have a vested interest in
> "regional-only" self-preservation which would affect their votes?

http://www.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm  says

"The ASO Address Council is responsible for the organizational roles of:

1. undertaking a role in the global policy development process as
described in attachment A of this document.

2. providing recommendations to the Board of ICANN concerning the
recognition of new RIRs, according to agreed requirements and policies
as currently described in document [ICP-2]."

so the "vested interest" is in following ICP-2, which does proscribe
regionality.  However, none of the folk who would like to make money
in IPv4 trading seem to want to set up a new "RIR" (complete with
allocation and assignment authority), so the regionality argument
regarding Conflict of Interest doesn't seem to apply.

The ICANN by-laws are pretty clear on this issue:

"ARTICLE VIII: ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION

Section 1. DESCRIPTION

1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) shall advise the Board
with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment,
and management of Internet addresses."

so while it may ultimately be an ICANN Board decision, it will be the
ASO that "advises" the ICANN BoT.

BTW, there is an independent review of the ASO in progress:

http://www.nro.net/news/independent-review-of-the-icann-aso

the results of which should be interesting.

As for other fora where this could be discussed (besides ICANN), the
IGF (global and regionals) springs to mind, as does the OECD and even
perhaps the CoE.  None of whom would be the "deciders", but could
provide platforms for wider discussion (and capacity building) around
these issues.

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 05:57:58 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "frnkblk at iname.com" <frnkblk at iname.com>
Cc: "ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] If we would pursue a transfer policy without
        needs justification...
Message-ID: <82026FDB-C821-4C2A-9A46-6A5162147F21 at arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On May 1, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:

> If the community does ever debate a transfer policy that eliminates need
> justification, there should be some verbiage that the selling organization
> and its successors would not be able to receive more IPv4 space from ARIN's
> free pool unless there were exceptional circumstances.  Otherwise an org
> could be set up to justify space and then sell, show need, rinse and repeat.

A similar provision exists in APNIC's transfer policy which makes selling
organization ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations
or assignments for a period of 12 months after the transfer (or until APNIC
reaches its austerity phase with 1 final allocation allowed per organization
from their final /8 of space) <http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy>

I'm expressing neither support or concern over the provision, but believe
as "running code", it's information that the community should be aware of
in this discussion.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 06:19:46 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other
        contacts        to act through a "blacklist")
Message-ID: <3BEF530A-B50C-400A-893B-CD6497CC3FD9 at arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On May 1, 2011, at 6:05 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

> curran>  "Legacy resources that have been abandoned because a company, for
> curran>   example, has dissolved don't really pose a problem."
> ...
>
> John Curran knows good and well that there is a problem.  He has simply
> been doing his level best to steer himself and his minions well and
> truly clear of taking any responsiblity for fixing it, or even in-
> vestigating it.

Ron -

 Leo seems to have pulled one sentence from the middle of
 my remarks; here's the full statement in context from the
 transcript -

"Legacy resources that have been abandoned because a company, for example, has dissolved don't really pose a problem. Misuse of legacy resources could be problematic, could take more resources than handling other cases. And, again, we need to know is there a prioritization here that the community would apply if we adopt this policy."

 I meant exactly what I said, which is that ARIN doesn't have
 difficulties cleaning up resources which are truly abandoned...
 it's fairly simple to do so once we receive a report and can
 determine the address holder is defunct. I was not speaking of
 resources of  a defunct organization which are in active use
 and likely being misused; those can indeed be problem *which
 is precisely as I said in my remarks*

 We're absolutely willing to put more resources on these types
 of abuse, but need to understand which targets and what level
 of resources the members want us to invest here.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 10:15:55 +0300
From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other
        contacts to act through a "blacklist")
Message-ID: <BANLkTinTo1z98TUdpVzU7v+C8M2ghbxEpA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi John,

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

<snip>
>
> ?We're absolutely willing to put more resources on these types
> ?of abuse, but need to understand which targets and what level
> ?of resources the members want us to invest here.

I would rather ARIN survey the Members/community on this issue rather
than the "if you could make money flogging your IP space would you
want to" kind of survey.

In addition, I think that rfg has a rather simplistic view of accuracy
of the DB entries.

Perhaps John, you can enlighten us as to whois responsible for said
accuracy?.   I had thought that it was largely down to holders of
resources to keep information up-to-date, with the caveat that ARIN RS
does have some role to play for those allocations and direct
assignments it maintains.

What I see happening is that that ARIN is being put in a damned if
they do and damned if they don't position in re: accuracy of legacy
resources, with some folk saying "ARIN is not doing its job regarding
accuracy of legacy entries" and others saying "don't you dare touch
any legacy entries".

Anyway that's my 2 shillings.

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 09:57:50 -0300
From: Arturo Servin <aservin at lacnic.net>
To: arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Analogies
Message-ID: <7CD5F1ED-DB5D-44F2-82F7-4770E6E2D2E1 at lacnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

        LACNIC does not.

-as

On 30 Apr 2011, at 02:31, Owen DeLong wrote:

> APNIC, RIPE, AfriNIC, and LACNIC all charge their legacy holders
> annual fees to the best of my knowledge.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 71, Issue 2
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110501/4bc641c1/attachment.htm>