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

[Mike Burns]

Hi McTim,

I don't see the slippery slope.
IPv4 addresses have *already* been monetized.
In the near future, once the free pool has exhausted, the only way to get 
IPv4 addresses will be to pay for them.
We can bemoan the fact, but we can't change that fact in any way I can see 
or that you have proposed.
Let's not setup a false dichotomy, as in pass my proposal and face the 
monetized IPv4 market, don't  pass my proposal and somehow the deep pockets 
don't win.
With ARIN's existing policy, the deep pockets will still beat the shallow 
pockets.

The fundamental problem I have with your post is that you fail to recognize 
the significant game-changer that is exhaust.
If you have read what I have written, you will find no mention of monetizing 
IPv6, and really there was no movement towards monetizing IPv4 until the 
brick wall of exhaust nearly hit us in the nose.

So that's where we are, like it or not, we are at the exhaust point, and 
moving forward in IPv4 will require the purchase of IPv4 addresses.

I argue that the needs basis is the appropriate model for handing out free 
addresses, but the purpose of the needs requirement, that is distribution to 
users who will put the addresses to productive use, has been superceded by 
the actions of the market, which I have argued will have the same overall 
effect of driving these assets to their most productive use.

As far as arresting what you consider a slide towards private registries, 
what could be better than arming our registries with the optimal tools to 
encourage registry at ARIN in order to forestall any flight to a private 
registry, which presumably would have some advantage in the customer's eyes?

If we insist on maintaining the needs analysis as a roadblock to (many? 
some? a few?) transactions, we are driving that registration out of the 
system you are praising, and to what end? I say we run the risk of actually 
incentivizing the switch to private registries, and lest we forget, there is 
nothing in the world to prevent private registries from popping up and 
succeeding if they provide some utility to customers and to network 
operators.

We are stewards not just of IPv4 addresses, but AS numbers, Ipv6 addresses, 
AND Whois. At this point let us not make policy designed for the stewardship 
of free resources that operates at the risk of Whois accuracy and 
usefulness.

The Internet succeeded, in your eyes, because it was open, transparent, and 
collaborative. Why then, are we engineering policy which is less transparent 
and less open? Remember, my policy does away with NDAs and allows for 
transparency in transactions by removing ARIN's transactional impediments 
and faciliating the registration on the public Whois registry.  Maintaining 
needs drives transactions into the darkness and threatens the functionality 
of Whois, of which we are stewards.

Do we want transparent transactions, at least as far as knowing who controls 
what netblock? Then let's end the policies which prevent ARIN from 
registering the transfer of otherwise legal transactions.

Let me just end with the crucial factor- we don't have any more IPv4 
addresses left to steward, we have already moved into the commoditization of 
these addresses, but as long as the free pool of AS numbers and IPv6 
addresses exists, stewardship requires some constraint on their allocation, 
and I have seen no mention anywhere, by anyone, that these things should be 
commoditized. Thus the fear of lifting needs requirements for addresses 
already allocated should not be transmogrified into some fear of ravenous 
capitalists set to devour the Internet model.

Regards,
Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "Tom Vest" <tvest at eyeconomics.com>; "Chris Engel" <cengel at conxeo.com>; 
<arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate


Hi,

Apologies for the length of this posting.

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Hello to the list,

<snip>

> arrayed above? Any large loopholes or gotchas? Risks or threats we haven't
> considered?

In November, at the AfriNIC meeting, I gave a presentation on
"Emerging Threats to the RIR system".

You can find that one here:

http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-13/images/stories/af13_presentation/AF-13-24/Emerging_threats_to_RIR.pdf

This proposal has outlined a more serious threat than any in my
presentation, that is the threat of removing the need any need for a
PDP.

I think we are on a very slippery slope to a dystopic future in which
all access to IP addresses (v4 or v6) are done on a "cash n carry"
basis.  Currently, we are near the top of that steep and slippery
slide, sitting on a sturdy branch (which we call "needs-basis" or TV's
"capability" testing) of a stout tree (species STLS).

The next ledge down is where APNIC sits. They call it prop-050.  Below
that we can see other ledges and trees where we might stop on the way
down, including the shelf of inter-RIR transfer, the slender branch of
 RIR verification,  etc, etc, all the way down into the festering
swamp of de-aggregation.

Put another way STLS-->removal of needs basis-->removal of RIR
involvement in transfers/addition of private registries--> full
commoditisation of v4-->commoditisation of v6-->removal of any needs
to have policy-->elimination of IP address policy communities/PDPs.

There will always be folk who will argue for the purest form of a
"free-market", which as we know is mostly theoretical.  Once v4 is
fully commoditised, there will inevitably be folk who want to do the
same to v6.  I can hear the arguments now "hey if we can buy and sell
v4, why not v6, after all they are the same thing, they are both IP
addresses, no?"

Once we have fully commoditised all IP resources (including ASNs BTW),
 then what is the point of having PDPs or RIR communities to engage in
same?  If you remove the regulator, and the rule governing IP address
distribution is "the one with the deepest pocket wins", then there is
no need for a rule making community.

In another forum, I have used the acronym BUTOC to describe the
Bottom-Up, Transparent, Open, Consensus driven Internet PDPs or what
ISOC calls the Internet Ecosystem.

http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/factsheet_ecosystem_20090310.pdf 
says:

"The Internet is successful in large part due to its unique model:
shared global ownership, development based on open standards, and
freely accessible processes for technology and policy development. The
Internet’s unprecedented success continues to thrive because the
Internet model is open, transparent, and collaborative. The model
relies on processes and products that are local, bottom-up, and
accessible to users around the world"

Now, if this is true, (which I believe it is), eliminating the
underpinnings of this model would be detrimental to the development of
the Internet.

We have already commoditised IP connectivity, let's not commoditise IP
addressing.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel