[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[John Springer]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for another stimulating post/proposal. Congratulations on 
generating a massive response which seems to include several new posters! 
I have reviewed through your post of 12 May 2011 16:56:16.

>From here on I have a mix of comments to the original proposal itself and 
comments on comments to the proposal which I'll do inline below.

On Wed, 11 May 2011, Mike Burns wrote:

<snip>

> 1. Policy Proposal Name: IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois 
> Accurate

I note with interest the explanation that the Policy Proposal Name is 
intended to be taken with tongue firmly in cheek. I'm glad that's cleared 
up as I was fixin to expostulate,

<snip>

>
> and add to the NRPM Section 12:
>
> 10.    ARIN will not use utilization as a measure of policy compliance for addresses transferred under 8.3.

because I was confused as to why a policy whose major (only?) proposed 
effect is to remove utilization devotes most of its wording to WHOIS 
accuracy. Who wouldn't want that?  But I understand now that it is 
intended only as a witticism. I will therefore attempt to speak only to 
the non-WHOIS part of the proposal.

>
> 8. Rationale:

<snip>

>
> The underlying proposition behind this policy proposal is that the
> registry of IPv4 addresses operated by ARIN is of general utility and
> value only while it accurately describes the current state of address
> distribution. If a class of address movement transactions are excluded
> from being entered in the registry, then the registry will have
> decreasing value to the broader community, and the integrity of the
> network itself is thereby compromised.  This proposal's central aim is
> to ensure the continuing utility and value of the ARIN address
> registry by allowing the registry to record transactions where IPv4
> addresses are transfered between ARIN account holders.

But where is utilization in this underlying proposition?

Having observed the preparatory discussions that led to this proposal and 
subsequent comments to it, I recall massive dialogue on the MS/NN 
transaction. To integrate that subject with this proposal, I must go to 
comments to the proposal for guidance. In the authors response of 11 May 
2011 17:12:57 to Tom Vest regarding "current legal realities" it is 
stated: "4. Finally, the requirement at issue here, a needs analysis had 
to be completed by ARIN, which magically showed that MS qualified for 
exactly the amount already bid for and negotiated the sale of."

And this paragraph

"If they had needed fewer addresses, they could have bid for 
less than the full pool. If they needed more addresses, they should have 
received an additional ARIN allocation. Paraphrasing Goldilocks, the 
random allocation of addresses to long-ago Nortel acquisitions was "just 
right."

which I interpret as expressing disbelief. I could be wrong here.

So, the implication of an ARIN policy deficiency serious enough to require 
jettisoning needs analysis. This after several (3?, 5?) rounds of the 
question asked and answered; John Curran coming right out and stating that 
a needs assessment was satifactorily conducted and ARIN policy was 
followed.

Which is where I start having a problem.

John Curran asks 3 things of us:

1) _I_ oppose this proposal as written, and here's why:

2) It looks to me like we have a fundamental logic flaw here. This 
proposal will fix a problem that does not exist! From my perspective, a 
needs assessment was properly conducted in the Microsoft/Nortel bankruptcy 
affair and ARIN policy was followed. John Curran says so, author says no. 
Which brings us to the realm of belief and he said, he said. Who do I 
believe, John or author? Well, John has been exposed to the facts of the 
matter and cannot talk about it, except obliquely. The rest of us have 
only our interpretations of public documents. John has a fiduciary 
responsibility here, so real penalties might apply if he prevaricates. 
Author can pretty much say what he likes, the worst we could do is get 
quite cross. John has several decades of credibility in public policy and 
networking. So might the author, but I can't say. But here's the deal, IT 
DOESN'T MATTER. We will never know and can't know. And if we do know, it 
will be because somebody broke the rules. Adopting policy on the sole 
basis of belief is not acceptable. If an NDA gets violated, relying on 
facts turned up thereby from what will essentially be fruit of the 
poisoned tree would be odious. The invisible hand has moved! And lastly, 
there appears no other even remotely sufficient reason for removing 
utilization/needs analysis. I reject the idea that because everything 
changes after V4 runout, it's OK to deep six it as insufficiently 
rational.

Oh, somebody else said it already, but the RIR system specifically 
allows for different policies in different regions. So may we please 
dispense with the APNIC did it thing? It's a fallacy anyway: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

3)	I don't think this can be fixed in text.

respectfully

John Springer