[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

[Keith W. Hare]

As a legacy resource holder, my company benefits from a reasonably stable internet. 

So far, I have only seen bits of the changes that people seem to have in mind to allow for alternative address registries. I have not seen a complete enough proposal to evaluate what effect such a proposal will have on internet stability.

With ARIN, I can influence policies as much as someone who works for a company that is assigned (or allocated) a couple of /8s. My influence on policy comes from my ability to write a coherent argument, not from how much money my company spends.

I don't see how I will have any ability to influence a for-profit address registry. 

If ARIN is a monopoly, it is a benevolent monopoly that is protecting my interests. 

To convince me to support fragmentation of address registries, I will have to be convinced that such a fragmentation will protect my interests and give me at least the same influence as I have today.


Keith Hare

 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Burns
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Jimmy Hess
Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

The authority flows down from the US Dept of Commerce. It doesn't go from 
there to the RIRs and back up to ICANN.
ICANN>>RIRs

I don't have any problems with the RIRs being heard from, just with them 
deciding.
As for the IPV4 address space, the presumption is that addresses could be 
transferred to a new registry with a whois pointer to that new registry.
So even though it is all allocated currently, inter-RIR transfer is coming 
via the Global Transfer Policy, and that mechanism could be used to populate 
a new registry.
By address holders voluntarily choosing their registry provider in the way 
domain name holders can choose their provider.

So in the sense that the RIRs will be trying to protect their monopoly 
markets, they are the fox.

And the network operators and address  holders will be the real deciders of 
registry competence.

Regards,

Mike







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>; "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>; 
<arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of 
interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN


> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> 
> wrote:
>> 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
> No... it's not the tail wagging the dog;  you have two separate dogs.
>
> The RIR dog, and the ICANN dog; each dog has its own different jobs.
> Neither dog is master of the other.
>
> One dog is the seeing-eye dog,  the other dog is the drug sniffing dog.
> The proposal to the ICANN dog is asking the drug-sniffing dog to lead the 
> blind.
>
>> 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
>> decide, since the representatives of the RIRs may have a vested interest 
>> in
>> "regional-only" self-preservation which would affect their votes?
>
> The IANA function  maintains the list of  number resources assigned.
> In the case of IP addresses and AS numbers,  which RIR  IP addresses
> and AS numbers are assigned to.
>
> At this point, it would be a bit pointless to for any new registry to 
> apply, as
> responsibility for the entire IPv4 address space has already been granted
> to RIR organizations, the assignments are not revokable, the RIRs 
> currently
> do not provide any way to release or transfer resources between RIRs,
> and no entity other than RIRs can enable transfers of resources between
> registries.
>
> A new additional registry could receive IPv6 space and AS numbers, 
> however.
>
>
> If anyone wanted to make a new registry, of this nature, it would be in 
> their
> interest to work with the community, and the RIRs, first.
>
> The spurious, frivolous  "conflict of interest"   claims to attempt to 
> hold
> the discussion outside the normal community venues for IP addressing 
> policy
> discussion,  are obviously an attempt to end-run  around things like 
> rational
> discussion of proposals by the proper community,  and comment by RIRs
> the IP address space was given to.
>
>
> The bottom up policy process, would indicate a proposal like this goes
> to the community first.
>
> If the communities accept the proposal, but the RIR boards don't go
> along with this,
> they abandon the proposal despite proven support,
>
>
> _then_  the author might have a case to seek out other (unusual) venues.
> But by sending some letter to ICANN,  things are made to look as an 
> attempt
> to sneak something in / slip something by the community.
>
>
>> I have nothing against the RIRs being heard and their case presented, but 
>> if
>> their decision is dispositive, it appears as if the fox is guarding the
>> henhouse.
>
> No, a horde of hens are guarding the henhouse.
> If  the entire RIR community is being characterized a 'fox';  that is
> really quite strange.
>
> --
> -JH 

_______________________________________________
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.