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

Mon May 2 11:14:09 EDT 2011

Hi Keith,

I'm pretty sure that everybody, legacy and non-legacy, also benefits from a 
stable internet.

It will be the decision of the voluntary participants in the market which 
will influence control over a new registry, and presumably the owners of the 
registry.
The address holders like yourself, and the network operators who will chose, 
or not chose, to utilize the services of the new registry to provide 
authoritative routing authority.

One of the changes proposed is to allow for legacy address holders like 
yourself, to move registry services to a new commercial registry, with ARIN 
including a pointer to that new registry in whois.

The new registry will have it's own transfer policies, for example, and may 
be stricter or less strict than existing RIRs, which already differ in 
transfer policies.

It may have a stricter chain-of-custody analysis than existing registries 
do.

It may have a team of lawyers reviewing things to ensure that those 
registered are the actual holders of the rights to those addresses.

It may have an insurance component to provide title insurance to account 
holders.

It may be recognized by network operators as a reliable source for routing 
authority, or it may not.
I presume that this will be based on the registry's performance in 
establishing the legitmacy of address holders' rights, and the ease with 
which network operators can access the data.
If I was a network operator, and I could choose from a registry that offered 
a service like address dispute resolution or title insurance, I might 
consider utilizing that registry to establish routing authority.

The registry will stand or fall based on its performance in a competitive 
environment.

The idea is similar to the concept of school vouchers. With school vouchers, 
you can take your child out of public school, and put him in private school.
The public schools lose some money as the vouchers are created, just as ARIN 
may lose some registration fee revenue.

The concept is that competitive pressures will be applied to the public 
resources which will increase the efficiency of the public schools, or in 
our case, the efficiency of the regional-monopoly-registry.

This concept was expressed by the opt-out proposal Benson proposed earlier, 
and perhaps it was not fully understood. Benson's proposal would have been 
the ground-up policy development which would have naturally led to the 
creation of alternate registries.

Since that proposal failed, I have no problems with John Curran representing 
that the ARIN community does not support the proposal to allow competing 
registries as ARIN's Executive Council member on the NRO.

But I feel the decision, informed by input from the RIRs through the NRO, 
should be made by the level above the RIRs and below US Dept. of Commerce.

Regards,

Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith W. Hare" <Keith at jcc.com>
To: <arin-ppml at arin.net>; "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>; "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict 
ofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

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. 