[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM Section 2 - Legacy Resources

[Chris Engel]

> [Milton L Mueller] Like Paul V., you see this as something that only a few
> brokers want. I suspect that it is operators and ipv4 address holders that will
> drive this, the brokers are only responding to that market. If the operators
> don't want it, or if it harms operators or increases their relative costs, it won't
> happen. On that we agree.

Prof. Mueller,

Philosophically, I'm rather sympathetic to the concept of ARIN acting as a simple registrar of record for transfers of already allocated address blocks. Due to the difference in dynamics between allocated and unallocated address blocks, it's clear to me that managing allocations from the free pool necessitated a more aggressive resource stewardship role from ARIN for those address blocks and that same role isn't necessitated for already allocated blocks.

That being said, the membership of ARIN seems to have expressed it's interest that ARIN continue it's stewardship role in regards already allocated resources and has done so by implementing a policy that sets certain minimum requirements/conditions upon transfer of allocated address blocks. Presumably the membership does so because it believes that it is in the best interest of the community and the operation of the internet as a whole to impose such requirements. While that belief is certainly not universal among the community (and I'm not a big fan of it myself), there appears to have been enough consensus on it that it was enacted into policy.

Unless I'm mistaken, what the policy proposal in question seems to result in is the carving out of a special exemption from those requirements for entities who acquire  address blocks (via transfer) from legacy address holders as opposed to acquiring them (via transfer) from non-legacy address holders. I'm failing to see what the rationale for that difference in treatment is? What is it that makes those policy requirements useful/fair to apply in one case and not useful/fair in the other? It's strikes me that sort of inequal application of policies/requirements isn't a great thing for the community as a whole.

I fully understand why the ORIGIONAL holders of legacy address space were treated differently in regards the resources they ALREADY had. Not only was there the uncertain legal question of attempting to impose conditions on entities ARIN had no contractual relationship with, but more importantly there was the consideration of unnecessary disruptiveness in attempting to change the conditions under which those entities had been holding those resources  for years. In other words, if entity A was widely recognized as holding a particular block for years before ARIN, it's alot more harmful/disruptive to try to revoke that recognition then it is to allow it an exemption to certain requirements imposed upon new registrants. The paradigm is not much different then the "Grandfather Clauses" which exist in certain laws/regulations. The rationale behind those is to limit the harm/disruption of imposing change on what had been upto that point relatively stable/well functioning systems while still allowing changes to be introduced which are perceived as necessary/beneficial to the continuing function of the system as a whole.  Grandfather Clause status is rarely transferable from an entity which holds it and the reasoning for that would seem to apply here, the disruption it is intended to avoid is already imposed by the act of transfer itself, no additional harm/disruption is realized by declining to allow the transfer of the exemption along with the resource, and indeed if the policy requirements are actually well founded and beneficial, perpetuating the exemption would impose harm in itself. So again, I fail to see why requiring a transferee to justify need (for example) when receiving non-legacy space is a good thing and suddenly turns into a bad thing when the space is legacy?

If the argument is that needs requirements in transfers are not beneficial in general, while I'm personally sympathetic to that position, I believe that particular battle has already been fought and lost. Are you proposing another run at it?


Christopher Engel 

> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:05 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-172 Additional definition for NRPM
> Section 2 - Legacy Resources
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > If I put the property religion aside, can we explore one of the points
> > you make below?
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] Sure...
> 
> > [is it] advisable for all the ISPs, End user network operators, content
> provider
> > networks, Universities, and everyone who operates the Internet to pave
> > the way for post-allocation services and interact with other addressing
> > registrars.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] For some of them the answer is emphatically yes, for
> others, it will make little difference either way.
> There is no homogeneity in this community with respect to their interests on
> this matter. Tom Vest's attempt to poison the well notwithstanding, we don't
> have to have an abstract debate about methodological individualism in the
> social sciences to agree on that simple fact.
> 
> > My question would be why? As with any value proposition, do the benefits
> > they receive outweigh the price they have to pay?
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] That depends on how big the price is and how big the
> benefits are. I suspect that both will be a function of the length of time it
> takes to get to IPv6, if we get there at all. If we enter into an extended
> period of IPv4/v6 coexistence, say 10 years or more, increasingly scarce v4
> resources will need to be carefully managed and husbanded. In that case,
> the value of having specialist address registrars and a competitive post-
> allocation services market would be quite enormous, and extend to quite a
> few operators. And the value of having ARIN and the other RIRs develop an
> ability to integrate multiple private, competing, efficient registrars with a
> single, global authoritative database would be potentially quite beneficial
> also - even if the transition to v6 was not so long.
> 
> > All the networks around
> > the globe benefit from the central coordination of the RIR system as a
> > mechanism to participate in the Internet.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] problem is, it isn't really centrally coordinated. There are 5
> RIRs and you have to search separately in each one. The RIRs and their Whois
> are actually quite antiquated in some respects.
> 
> > Because some address holders or individuals wish to trade IP address
> > space for money, it is not done without a cost. To operate under such a
> > model, those costs are pushed out to all those entities listed above
> > that currently benefit from the central coordination. Why should all the
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] I have been saying all along that you can have central
> coordination AND competition/multiple registrars; we do it in DNS and we do
> it in stock trades. So are you assuming that the model I am discussing involves
> eliminating coordinated uniqueness? No wonder you think you're against it!
> 
> > network operators across the Internet incur the costs of having to refer
> > to multiple regristrar systems and the inevitable disputes that will
> > result beyond those that already occur in the current model?
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] Like Paul V., you see this as something that only a few
> brokers want. I suspect that it is operators and ipv4 address holders that will
> drive this, the brokers are only responding to that market. If the operators
> don't want it, or if it harms operators or increases their relative costs, it won't
> happen. On that we agree.
> 
> > It is only my opinion but the property argument is misleading. Some are
> > being led to believe that they can pay xxx amount of dollars for an IP
> > block and it will work across the Internet. Those dollars spent, or even
> > a US court order do not guarantee global connectivity to the Internet.
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a pretty large portion of the
> > Internet that does not care about what a US judge might decide. I think
> > we really need to weigh the costs and the benefits of the road we are
> > heading down.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] I think if RIRs or whatever registration system evolves out
> of them accurately reflect the results of trades, then yes, damn right,
> someone ought to be able to pay xxx dollars for an IP block and those
> addresses should be as easily routable as they were before the trade.
> 
> > Dan Alexander
> > Speaking only as myself
> 
> [Tom Vest] speaking for Milton Mueller
> [Milton L Mueller] speaking for myself, too
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.