[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamentalconflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

Thu May 5 11:03:45 EDT 2011

Mike,

ARIN staff will be posting the proposal deadlines on the ARIN web site, but I should be able to give you an idea of timelines here. The AC meets by teleconference on the third Thursday of each month where we discuss the status of proposals, motions, and other business.

At a high level, the three main stages are accepting a proposal onto the docket, making it a draft to be discussed at the public policy meeting, and forward to the Board or abandon. The details can be found here. https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html There are other steps, but I'm trying to keep this email from becoming a process doc.

If we line the deadlines up with the AC meetings, it would be best to have a proposal submitted at least 10 days before the June 16th AC call. This would allow ARIN staff to provide their clarity and understanding review prior to the call. Then on the June call it becomes possible to accept it onto the docket. This provides the month between calls to work on the proposal and meet the July 22 deadline for staff and legal review on our July conference call. That leaves the August call to meet the deadline to determine the proposals that will be on the agenda for consideration during the Public Policy Meeting.

I hope this helps.
-Dan

From: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com<mailto:mike at nationwideinc.com>>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 15:02:03 -0400
To: Microsoft Office User <daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com<mailto:daniel_alexander at cable.comcast.com>>, <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamentalconflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

Hi Dan,

Yes, I do support the kind of oversight recommended in the letter, using as a model the requirements to be a DNS registrar.
Perhaps this alone is justification for the highest level decisionmaking.
Since a competing registry would be on the same level as the existing RIR's, in effect we would be asking the RIRs to oversee themselves if we allowed the RIRs to decide the issue, whether at the RIR or ASO level.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I do understand and appreciate the beauty of the non-governmental approach to Internet governance.

I think the many kinds of conflicts you reference in your last paragraph are likely to be sorted out around the world in courts and legislatures, which I think are probably better suited to that task than ARIN.
Much like the evolution (or de-evolution) of the Domain Name System.

I will certainly vet any policy proposal I offer here, though can you give me an idea of the timeframe for proposals to be considered at the next AC meeting, should enough support manifest on the list?

Regards,

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: Alexander, Daniel<mailto:Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamentalconflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

Mike,

As one of the AC shepherds for the proposals that were abandoned, I would offer one suggestion. Feel free to vet the proposal language you are considering here on this list prior to submitting an actual proposal. That is what this list is for. It would also help refine the scope that Keith mentions, and avoid the confusion that earlier proposals created. It is much easier to refine and evolve policy language on the ppml before it becomes part of the PDP process.

If you look back to proposals 133, 134, and 136, they suggested that resource holders could opt-in, opt-out, or find the lowest common denominator to establish claim. While this would allow for what you propose, they offered none of the oversight that you advocate, which is also why there was such a cold reception.

You can see how a competing registry, that is operating properly, could do so in a complimentary manner to the RIR. One thing people will have issue with is how the overall model can exist with the individuals who would try to create registries that would not apply similar standards of operation. Without any protections, the ISP's who would have to rely on this data would not be able to depend on the overall system (not referring to any particular registry) which is the shift in burden I mentioned in an earlier post.

While people may have issues with the quality of whois, or registration of assignments, there is an upside to the current system. In this region, data points to ARIN and anyone can get involved, change the rules, and try and hold ARIN accountable. In the distributed model that is proposed, accountability is spread out, and the ability to resolve conflicts or issues becomes much harder. These are the kind of concerns that need to be addressed in order to gain momentum on a change of this scale.

I hope this helps.

Dan Alexander
ARIN AC- speaking only for myself

From: "Keith W. Hare" <Keith at jcc.com<mailto:Keith at jcc.com>>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:56:28 -0400
To: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com<mailto:mike at nationwideinc.com>>, "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamental conflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

Mike,
So far, we have seen only bits of policy proposals that hint at the idea of competing private address registries. Without a policy proposal that covers all of the details, we are left to extrapolate the remaining pieces. This extrapolation may or may not be what competing address registry proponents have in mind, but until we see a full policy proposal, we are left with only perceptions of your (and others) motivations.
Keith
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Mike Burns
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:23 PM
To: John Sweeting
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamental conflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
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.
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 policy.
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.)
(And yes, I have lost trust in ARIN staff since the MS/Nortel debacle)
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 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 him.
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.
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.
Regards,
Mike Burns
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

________________________________

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110505/0df8f59a/attachment.htm>