[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamental conflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
john.sweeting at gmail.com
Tue May 3 14:46:39 EDT 2011
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> It really is as easy as rounding up all the support you can muster, have
> that support join PPML, submit the proposal that you would like see made
> policy and then have your support show their support through PPML and the
> next PPM. Is there a reason you do not want to follow that process? It might
> help gain support if you provided your underlying motivation(s).
> -John Sweeting
> Hi John,
> My interest is in having a market for the buying and selling of IP
> addresses free from government and psuedo-government restrictions like taxes
> and justification requirements.
> I think this will best serve the interests of a community long held in
> thrall to the vision of an IPv6 transition that simply has not occurred in
> anything like the predicted timeframe.
> I would prefer that any support I find not be motivated by perceptions of
> my motivations, just my words and ideas.
Thanks for sharing this.
> I voiced support for the concept of having a informed higher authority make
> the decision about competing registries requested in the letter which
> started the thread. I support competing registries because I believe that
> their competitive forces will move the market towards freedom, and because
> presumably a competing registry could decide its own, more liberal transfer
> My understanding is that one way to get that accomplished, and I will
> accede it would be the better way, would be for the participants in policy
> making in all 5 RIRs come together to forge a policy allowing for competing
> private registries.
> But I think that is like expecting Network Solutions to have voted
> for competing DNS registrars. Unlikely to happen due to institutional
> conflicts of interest.
> (I understand that NetSol was not a community run org like the RIRs, but I
> see a natural institutional conflict between those who dominate a
> closed market and those who seek to expand it.)
> (And yes, this is also a commentary on the tiny number of participants who
> seem to people the RIR executive positions, and by extension the tiny groups
> of vocal participants in the RIR-PPML process.)
The AC would love to see participation from a greater number of participants
as well, it helps us when we are working on policies. One thing I have
noticed over the years that when things start to go against the majority's
wishes, they do speak up.
> (And yes, I have lost trust in ARIN staff since the MS/Nortel debacle)
Sorry to hear that but for me, not knowing all the facts and intricacies
involved, my respect and trust for ARIN staff has grown. I do not know of a
professional organization that takes their commitment to their members any
more seriously than the folks at ARIN.
> But nobody seems too sure what that higher authority is, and of course some
> participants see the community of RIR-PPML participants as the highest
> authority of all.
I, for one, echo that sentiment but would expand it to the whole of the
world community as PPML is just one vehicle for getting your voice heard.
> I didn't write that letter, nor do I have any relationship with the writer
> of the letter, to my knowledge I have never met, conversed, or emailed with
> As for changing policy in the ARIN region, that is my intent, and I have
> heard from another poster who is interested in co-sponsoring a proposal
> designed to create a free market for ip transfers.
That is great, looking forward to seeing your proposal. Thank you for
> So I will work with him to do just as you say, round up support and see if
> we can get a proposal that passes muster with the PPML and can be included
> in the next PPM.
Very good and thanks again.
> Mike Burns
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML