[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamentalconflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
mike at nationwideinc.com
Tue May 3 14:43:10 EDT 2011
I don't care much about private registries, that is not the thrust of my proposal.
I do think this nascent market would evolve more robustly in an environment were customers (address holders) could shop for registries who compete on price and performance.
But this thread is related to a letter to ICANN proposing to have a decision made at that level in order to counter perceived conflict of interest at the RIR/ASO level.
I supported that idea because I believe that private registries are a good idea, and I do think there is a conflict, but there was no proposal involved, ever.
I think Mr. McTim posted a notice to the list regarding some rather dated correspondence on ICANN's page.
I merely supported the letter writer's position.
If I offer a proposal to the ARIN-PPML, it will be to remove all justification requirements for all transfers, while retaining them for the free pool.
Per David Farmer advice about repeating, I repeat:
1. Level the playing field between RSA and LRSAs, and in combination with the simplified LRSA Mr. Herrin has proposed, will have the effect of bringing many legacy addresses under agreement.
2. Allow for ARIN to accurately depict inevitable MS/Nortel-type future transfers as being done within policy
3. Steward the addresses to their most efficient use as determined by free market price
4. Save ARIN a lot of time and money
5. Encourage accurate POC information for legacy addresses which have changed hands outside ARIN purview.
6. Bring ARIN into compliance with the stewardship policies of the RIR with the highest demand and closest to exhaust
7 End these angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussions about single aggregate policy and 3, 12, or 24 month needs analyses for transfers
8 It will moot the need to protect STLS listers from ARIN poaching, increasing supply and reducing price
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith W. Hare
To: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamentalconflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN
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.
From: 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
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).
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML