[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 9/2/11 6:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 06:38:44PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> Mike,
>>>> 	What risk do you see in listing un/under-utilized resources that is
>>>> not present in merely holding those resources?
>>> Can't say for sure, but I'd guess it's comparable to the risk that
>>> exists in taking out a full page add in the local newspaper announcing
>>> "I will drive 80 in the 60 MPH speed zone at milepost X on highway Y at
>>> XX:XX on XX/XX/2001" that isn't present in driving 80 in a 60 but not
>>> advertising when and where you will be doing it.
>>> 
>> Except that it would be more like doing that after the chief of police and
>> the commandant of the highway patrol had told you that making such
>> an announcement in and of itself would not cause them to pursue you.
> 
> No, it is more like taking out an ad that says "I drive 80 MPH in the 60 MPH speed zone at milepost X on highway Y every day at 9 AM" after being told that making such an announcement was ok and hoping that the chief of police and the commandant of the highway patrol are never replaced with people who noticed your ad.
> 
> The reason we change laws instead of just hoping the enforcers will just be fair despite what the language says is precisely because the enforcers change their minds and/or are retire and are replaced.
> 

I'd happily support a policy proposal that codifies the fact that merely listing
addresses will not be used as grounds for a section 12 revocation. I would
not support listing resources as a complete free pass to avoid section 12.
If we did that, anyone who wanted to horde resources could simply list them
for an inconceivable price and avoid policy altogether.

>> 
>>> If your resources are underutilized, ARIN *could* do a section 12 audit
>>> and initiate reclamation.  If you don't tell anyone that you are
>>> underutilized, ARIN won't know, so they only way you'd get hit with an
>>> audit is if you got really unlucky.  If you tell the world (by putting
>>> them up for auction), the risks get higher, because ARIN knows (or at
>>> least has a strong indication) that you are underutilized.
>>> 
>> In spite of John's claims to the contrary, I actually believe that ARIN should
>> begin performing random reviews as time permits and should certainly
>> be looking for resources that appear to have a pattern of un/under-
>> utilization.
> 
> And this is even worse. We have members of the community saying "I know you've said that you're not going to be enforcing the speed limit for these flagrant violators, but I'd like you to start doing so".
> 
Uh, no. I don't support making reclamations just because you advertised the
space for sale. In fact, I'd even support giving you a 6 month free pass (oh,
wait, policy does that already) to complete the transaction. I'd even support
extending that free pass if ARIN staff feels you are working in good faith to
make the resources available to those who do need them (oh, wait, policy
already says that, too).

What I don't support is letting the ones who aren't making the resources
that they are not using available to those who need them. Whether this is
through a sale or some other mechanism such as revocation.

>> 
>>> ARIN hasn't made a practice of doing that, and I agree with John's
>>> statement that they aren't likely to start doing that.  But if they
>>> don't know you are underutilized, your risk is lower than if they do
>>> know and you're relying on them to nevertheless refrain from an audit.
>>> In my view, the risk is very low either way.  But it is lower if ARIN
>>> doesn't have the information, and some companies are going to play it
>>> safe.
>>> 
>> John's statement wasn't that they aren't likely to start doing so. John's
>> statement was that he did not feel that they should start doing so.
>> John and I disagree in this area and I think at the end of the day
>> as scarcity becomes more of an issue, there will be more pressure
>> from the community to change John's position on this. John answers
>> to the board. The board answers to the members.
> 
> And so the members have a legitimate reason to have the policy changed, rather than simply relying on John's word as to what he would choose to do this week as an indication of how policy will always be interpreted.
> 

As I said, I think policy already provides the necessary protections, but, I don't
think it is in the best interests of the community and do not support giving anyone
who lists resources for sale a complete free pass to avoid policy.

You are certainly welcome to submit any policy proposal you wish. If you submit
one that fits within the intent I have descried above and does so in a better way
than current policy, then I will likely support it.

Owen