[arin-ppml] [address-policy-wg] On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))

[Tom Vest]

On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:

> On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:16 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> well, at first, just to state the obvious once more
>>> 
>>> a) For RIR-managed resources...
>>> 
>>> ...this is basically true. 
>>> 
>>> b) For pre-RIR resources...
>>> 
>>> ...RIR policies cannot be applied. Anyone can really sell this stuff, they seem to really own those.
>> 
>> That may be regional difference (or not), as in the ARIN region 
>> we run a single registry with a single set of policies which 
>> apply to all resources.  
> 
> Which is, of course, not particularly relevant to the question of whether resources can be bought or sold.  It is only relevant to whether or not ARIN will update their registry to reflect reality in their "single registry".
> 
> It would seem ARIN has decided that accuracy of registration data is secondary to conformance to "consensus" policy.  I hope RIPE does not follow ARIN down that particular path as such an approach would appear to strongly encourage the proliferation of registration information databases which will undoubtedly result in challenges in network operations.  I do not believe registration information databases should be used as a weapon to try to force compliance to policy.
> 
> Regards,
> -drc


On Apr 5, 2012, at 4:02 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> 
>> It would seem ARIN has decided that accuracy of registration data is secondary to conformance to "consensus" policy.  I hope RIPE does not follow ARIN down that particular path as such an approach would appear to strongly encourage the proliferation of registration information databases which will undoubtedly result in challenges in network operations.
> 
> So far it hasn't been a problem, but that's best a 
> discussion for mailing lists back in the ARIN region.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN

Hi David, 

Based on the statement above, it would seem that given the choice between (a) a single standard-ized registry, i.e., where participation in the registry is conditional on both (actively or passively) *contributing to* and *abiding by* participant-defined policies -- and (b) a registry which is unencumbered by any binding standards at all, and thus empowers individual participants to unilaterally assert "as reality" whatever seems appropriate to them at any given time, you would strongly prefer the latter? If this is correct, could you explain the basis for your preference? Do you believe that, under (a), the rate of deviation from "reality" (or the decline in registry usefulness) e.g., due to registry defections, etc., would be greater than the rate under (b) at which the selective "customization" of registry entries would erode the very notion a shared "reality" (at least for operational purposes)? Given the fact that your position seems to absolutely entail (b), at least for transferred resources, what if anything leads you to believe that the the effects of such a policy change would not cause other registry members to promptly exercise the same prerogative and/or to simply exit when the resulting degradation in registry data quality becomes apparent?

Genuinely curious, 

TV