[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
owen at delong.com
Mon May 2 18:48:11 EDT 2011
On May 2, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> The existence of competing registries does not imply a requirement on anybody to change, so your argument about expense to existing participants is invalid.
Not true. The chaos and disruption posed by unregulated registries will
increase the costs to ARIN, ARIN members, and other participants in the
industry regardless of whether they change registries or not.
> And yes, the market will sort out bad actors. That's one thing free markets do.
Right... The market sorted out Enron... Eventually. However, non of us in
California got our money back and we're all still paying higher electric
bills as a result.
The market sorted out the CMOs... Eventually. However, my house is now
worth 1/3rd of what it was worth and the new restrictive regulations on
refinancing prevent me from taking advantage of the new lower interest
rates due to my home being devalued too close to the amount I still owe
on it. Unfortunately, I wasn't irresponsible enough to be part of the cause
of this problem, so, as a good actor, I am not entitled to any of the relief
available from the government for the bad actors.
I think I've had enough of the way markets sort out bad actors for a while.
> Nobody said anything about no oversight, to the contrary I have said the registries should work under the same framework as RIRs.
The only oversight of the RIRs is their community processes and their
membership-elected boards. If you are OK with the other registries being
overseen by these same bodies, then, I'm not sure why you think they
would somehow be run differently from the existing RIRs.
> Just like all DNS registrars have to comply with rules setup to govern their behavior.
> Before you can be a DNS registrar you have to comply with the rules, and maintain compliance.
There are virtually no policies about how domain names are justified or
acquired in those rules. There are provisions for trademark disputes, but,
those are not applicable to IP addresses (unless you think that a
particular soft drink vendor should be automatically entitled to
the address 188.8.131.52).
> It's true that I was being forward thinking about the additional services competing registries might offer, but my point is that those services would only be offered if there was a demand for them, if the private registries are to endure.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander, Daniel" <Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com>
> To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
> While I can only speak for myself, I can attempt to answer your question
> of what may perturb some people. You make several very large assumptions
> in your claims, none of which were captured in the opt-in, opt-out, or any
> other proposals.
> You speak of title insurance, legal teams, and other items, ensuring that
> a competitive registry will provide better services than a community
> defined RIR. The problem is none of this is defined or required in any
> suggested framework. While some may provide these services, many may not,
> and there are no mechanisms to protect the ISP's or end users who rely on
> these services.
> While many advocates will quickly reply that the market will sort these
> bad actors out, it will be done at the expense of the people who currently
> rely on these RIR provided services at a fraction of the cost. If
> competitive registries are created without oversight, the burden and
> expense of validating registration records will be shifted to the very
> people who are supposed to benefit from this new model.
> This begs the question from some as to what purpose a commercial registry
> would serve other than to make money.
> My opinion only.
> Dan Alexander
> On 5/2/11 3:33 PM, "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
>>> But what is it about ARIN that is broken? What exactly do you think
>>> to be fixed?
>>> The only thing I've gotten out of the discussions so far is that some
>>> people think there is money to be made by providing IPv4 addresses based
>>> willingness and ability to pay rather than ARIN's current >demonstrated
>>> need policies.
>>> Why is it to my benefit if someone else makes money? Particularly if it
>>> perturbs the current mechanisms in a way that costs me money?
>>> Keith Hare
>> Hi Keith,
>> What is broken about ARIN is that scandalously large numbers of netblocks
>> not have valid POCs, for example. The stewardship of Whois leaves a lot
>> be desired.
>> Competitive pressures would help to finally decide who controls these
>> addresses and allow them to be transferred to those who would pay for
>> Network operators don't really have much of a choice in accessing Whois
>> information to determine the rights to advertise addresses, and competive
>> In my experience they rely on attestation and review of proferred
>> chain-of-custody docs when determining who can advertise which addresses,
>> when confronted with inconsistencies with whois.
>> A competitive registry with a title insurance component will give network
>> operators more security when deciding questionable cases.
>> What is broken about ARIN is that their transfer policies are more
>> restrictive than APNICs, and that will cause a flow of addresses out of
>> and into APNIC.
>> A competitive registry could presumably have a different transfer policy,
>> APNICs differs from ARINs.
>> What is broken about ARIN is that ARIN has professed no statutory control
>> over legacy addresses in the Plzak declaration in the Kremen case, and
>> attempts to control the registration of legacy resources.
>> With a private registry, the address rights holders can choose to opt-out
>> ARIN's dictats and choose their registry voluntarily.
>> I don't see how the creation of a private registry will perturb the
>> mechanisms in a way that costs you money, could you share why you feel
>> Mike Burns
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML