[arin-ppml] NRPN 8.2 & 2.3

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Mon May 2 20:56:20 EDT 2011


>Owen, 


>Would you be in support of an open exchange if there were basic controls in place to lockout speculators? 
>Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team

Jeff,

I would think that Owen would support speculation, as given the inevitable transition to IPv6, hoarders and speculators will take it in the shorts, plus driving up the price will drive us towards IPV6 even faster. Some inherent limits on speculation in this market...

As far as cornering the market, even the Hunt brothers would be unable to corner a market which is currently valued at close to $50 billion and rising.
(4.3 billion addresses times $11)

Regards,

Mike




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeffrey Lyon 
  To: Owen DeLong 
  Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml at arin.net ; Rudolph Daniel 
  Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 7:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPN 8.2 & 2.3





  On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:



    On May 2, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Mike Burns wrote:


      >It seems the community is
      >rather divided with some advocating a complete abandonment
      >of the principles of stewardship in favor of a laissez faire
      >address economy while others favor preservation of the
      >principles of stewardship and justified need while enabling
      >market incentives to free up space.
      >Owen


      Removing artificial restrictions on the transfer of IP address space is not, as Owen persists in characterizing it, an abandonment of the principles of stewardship.


    Yes... It is.


      Stewardship simply means different things pre- and post-exhaust.


    No, it does not.


      Pre-exhaust requires needs analyses to ensure efficient use of address space.
      Post-exahust, efficient use is ensured by the same market incentives you claim enables the freeing up of space.
      To wit, price.

    I don't believe that is a dependable system because without the needs basis,
    you open up the potential for a new class of organization... The speculator
    who wants to come in, use vast financial resources to acquire all addresses
    priced below some threshold he believes to be viable and then wait until
    the market desire for the resource exceeds that price (potentially by a wide
    margin). This delays the availability of addresses to a wider set of justified
    need while increasing the price without benefit to the community.


    The only entitiy that gains in this environment is the speculator. Everyone else
    loses.


    That is, regardless of what else you may think, in my mind an obvious abandonment
    of the responsibility of stewardship.


      I don't believe that there has been an answer to those of us who said that while it is grammatically acceptable to decide that a "single aggregate" relates to the needs justification, it is nonsensical to do that, as all needs analyses result in a single aggregate. You don't have a needs analysis at any time where it is found that a need is outside CIDR boundaries. Need assessment has always rounded up to that boundary.

    I agree with you that is the case.


      No, the only way to interpret the language of 8.3 is that the reception of the addresses should occur as a single aggregate, which is clear has not occurred with 8.3.
      To say the staff or the board acted outside of policy is correct in the MS/Nortel case.

    While it is nonsensical, I have found that the law is often nonsensical in its
    interpretation of plain English. The supreme court has somehow managed
    to interpret the plain English of the first amendment to include the ability
    to bankroll a campaign by a corporation as a form of protected free speech.
    To me, this seems completely nonsensical.


    So, we can't rule out a nonsensical interpretation and we need to write
    language that cannot be nonsensically interpreted.


    Owen


      Regards,
      Mike



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Owen DeLong
        To: Rudolph Daniel
        Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
        Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 3:44 PM
        Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPN 8.2 & 2.3


        At this point, I would agree. However, I would like to wait until I
        get a chance to discuss the matter with ARIN Counsel and
        further discuss it with staff before I start crafting proposals
        to do so.


        I don't feel that staff or the board have acted improperly. I think
        that policy failed to express the community intent well enough
        as to achieve or goals.


        I will continue to work on finding a way to bring policy better in
        line with community intent, but, the hard part will be achieving
        consensus on what that intent is. It seems the community is
        rather divided with some advocating a complete abandonment
        of the principles of stewardship in favor of a laissez faire
        address economy while others favor preservation of the
        principles of stewardship and justified need while enabling
        market incentives to free up space.


        It is most unfortunate that we failed to produce clear policy
        in 2009-1. I hope we can correct it at Philadelphia.


        Owen


        On Apr 30, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:


          It would seem clear to me that at the very least, NRPN 8.2 and 8.3 requires rephrasing. Is that also the view of the ppml?


          rd





            >> for such resources, as a single aggregate", not that a single
            >> aggregate be transferred.
            >
            > ... I do not believe that Stephen's interpretation below matches the
            > meaning or the intent of the policy as I understand it. ...

            I don't think it does either, for the record.  However, this points out
            how bad wording has left us in a situation where we're not sure /what/
            the policy text means--much less whether we agree with it.

            > I do agree that your interpretation would be a syntactically  and
            > grammatically valid construction, but, I believe it is contextually
            > nonsensical and not the intended meaning of the words.
            >
            > If anyone has a suggestion for making the actual intent more clear, I
            > am open to suggestions and would support making an editorial
            > correction for clarity.

            If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to
            allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent.  As
            it stands, though, I don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent
            well enough to try.

            S

            --
            Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
            CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
            K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

            -------------- next part --------------
            An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
            URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/ab367759/attachment-0001.html>
            -------------- next part --------------
            A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
            Name: smime.p7s
            Type: application/pkcs7-signature
            Size: 3646 bytes
            Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
            URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/ab367759/attachment-0001.bin>

            ------------------------------

            Message: 2
            Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:28:39 -0400
            From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
            To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
            Cc: Public Policy Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>
            Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Call for a study & survey to obtain necessary
                   information for policy development
            Message-ID: <BANLkTi=0i9isaCTnsTQC9NO=PX2RAcSt1A at mail.gmail.com>
            Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

            On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
            > ? contains a specific call for ARIN to charter a study including
            > ? a survey in order to obtain additional information to assist in
            > ? policy development.
            >
            > ? I've not seen any discussion of this suggestion; would it be
            > ? possible to get feedback from the otherwise shy participants
            > ? on the PPML mailing list?
            >
            > On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
            >> what we should do is
            >> charter ARIN to conduct a comprehensive study and:
            >>
            >> - Conduct a survey of the public at large, PPML users, full members,
            >> resource holders, and the AC to gain a clear understanding of
            >> sentiment for or against an open market.
            >> - Determine how many companies actually have IPv6 migration plans and
            >> ascertain road blocks, either legitimate or financial, that are
            >> preventing migration.
            >> - Would resource holders support a model that allowed ARIN to take a
            >> small commission on resource sales and then discontinue the practice
            >> of charging an annual fee to its members who are not buying and
            >> selling resources.

            These seem like they could be determined by survey.


            >> - In the survey, ask IPv4 resource holders to anonymously disclose
            >> their true utilization rates and determine if companies are hoarding
            >> resources either in hopes of future resale or to cover an arbitrary
            >> future need.
            >> - Determine the amount of participants that would come forward if told
            >> they could resell their space on the open market and ultimately
            >> determine how much unneeded space is being locked away in loosely
            >> justified allocations.
            >> - Determine if resource holders would be encouraged to tighten up
            >> internal policies and free up more space if there were a fair market
            >> value assigned to their space.

            These strike me as very difficult to determine by anything approaching
            a statistically valid survey. I would want to see a detailed
            methodology proposed before agreeing either that money should be spent
            conducting the survey or that the results would have merit to
            contribute to the policy debate.


            >> - Determine the economic impact. Would resource holders be better off
            >> selling their resources to more affluent companies who would be able
            >> to put the space to better use? Might there be a host of struggling
            >> small businesses who would like to put their /17 - /21 on the balance
            >> sheet? Are there companies that would purchase IPv4 space at a premium
            >> if allowed to do so?

            This would require a cost analysis of a great many factors, only some
            of which have been touched on in the listed survey. Given the abject
            lack of use of cost analysis in the Internet industry, it would
            require at least three independent cost analyses and considerable
            subsequent debate on and validation of the methodologies...

            Start here: http://www.sceaonline.net/

            Disclaimer: my father is a crotchety old cost analyst so I get a
            regular earful about this stuff.

            Regards,
            Bill Herrin


            --
            William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
            3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
            Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


            ------------------------------

            Message: 3
            Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:39:08 -0400
            From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
            To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
            Cc: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>, arin-ppml <arin-ppml at arin.net>
            Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Analogies
            Message-ID: <BANLkTimzAx7_S=oaHiEB2epuXmMiBc136w at mail.gmail.com>
            Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

            On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
            > I will point out that ARIN is the only registry that did not start
            > charging their legacy holders shortly after coming into existence.
            >
            > APNIC, RIPE, AfriNIC, and LACNIC all charge their legacy holders
            > annual fees to the best of my knowledge.
            >
            > I do not know whether a contract was required in any or all cases,
            > but, the fee portion of the equation is unique to ARIN to the best
            > of my knowledge.

            Hi Owen,

            I will suggest that an attempt by ARIN to charge $100/year under a
            contract simplified to, "We agree to keep your whois data and RDNS
            delegations intact as is for one year increments until either of us
            choose to cancel this contract" would meet with at most mild
            resistance from the legacy registrants. It would also, IMHO, provide
            an excellent way to weed out the abandoned registrations.

            This hasn't been done in part because we, in this forum, have insisted
            that legacy registrants should not be invited into the fold under such
            terms.

            Regards,
            Bill Herrin


            --
            William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com? bill at herrin.us
            3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
            Falls Church, VA 22042-3004


            ------------------------------

            Message: 4
            Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:43:29 -0400
            From: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
            To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen at sprunk.org>,      "Owen DeLong"
                   <owen at delong.com>
            Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
            Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP
                   addressTransfers
            Message-ID: <7B6110E30D2E40CDA7E10BCB85E290B7 at video>
            Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

            >If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent.  As it stands, though, I >don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent well enough to try.

            >S

            Steve,

            Here is why I call BS on the claim that these transfers comply with policy:

            "Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies."

            That is the text. The comma between resources and "as a single aggregate" can be read to cause the "as a single aggregate" clause to apply to either the verb phrase "be received" or the verb phrase "can demonstrate."

            But how would anybody demonstrate a need for multiple netblocks anyway?
            Isn't the need ALWAYS determined as a single aggregate?

            Regards,

            Mike



             ----- Original Message -----
             From: Stephen Sprunk
             To: Owen DeLong
             Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
             Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 8:27 PM
             Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP addressTransfers


             On 16-Apr-11 02:19, Owen DeLong wrote:

               On Apr 15, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

                 On 15-Apr-11 19:00, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

                   The adopted policies (if they are using the "relatively new policy" as alluded to in the release) require the transfer of *a single aggregate*.


                 Not quite.  NRPM 8.3 only requires the receiver "demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate", not that a single aggregate be transferred.

               ... I do not believe that Stephen's interpretation below matches the meaning or the intent of the policy as I understand it. ...

             I don't think it does either, for the record.  However, this points out how bad wording has left us in a situation where we're not sure what the policy text means--much less whether we agree with it.


               I do agree that your interpretation would be a syntactically  and grammatically valid construction, but, I believe it is contextually nonsensical and not the intended meaning of the words.


               If anyone has a suggestion for making the actual intent more clear, I am open to suggestions and would support making an editorial correction for clarity.

             If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent.  As it stands, though, I don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent well enough to try.

             S


            --
            Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
            CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
            K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             _______________________________________________
             PPML
             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:
             http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
             Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
            -------------- next part --------------
            An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
            URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/2d387170/attachment.html>

            ------------------------------

            _______________________________________________
            ARIN-PPML mailing list
            ARIN-PPML at arin.net
            http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

            End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 176
            ******************************************




          -- 


          Rudi Daniel
          danielcharles consulting
          1-784 498 8277






          _______________________________________________
          PPML
          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:
          http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
          Please contact 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).
        Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
        http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
        Please contact 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).
    Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
    http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
    Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



  Owen,


  Would you be in support of an open exchange if there were basic controls in place to lockout speculators? 


  -- 

  Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
  jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
  Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
  First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110502/f128507b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list