[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60months on 8.3 Specified Transfers (Owen DeLong)

[Owen DeLong]

I did not attack Jeff's business model. I pointed out that he has a vested profit interest in moving policy as close to unrestricted transfers as possible. I further pointed out that I did not feel that was good for the community. 

I did this as myself and not speaking as an AC member or on behalf of the AC. 

I have no conflict of interest and merely believing that a proposal represents bad policy is not a valid reason for me to recuse myself. 

My company profits greatly from prolonged conversion pain, actually. However, you are correct that I believe that isn't good for the Internet as a whole. I have voted against my company's interest on multiple occasions and my management well understands that I represent the community and not HE when voting as a member of the AC. 

Owen


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 28, 2012, at 13:38, <sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com> wrote:

> It is out of line that a member of the ARIN AC would attack the business
> model of IPv4 Market Group in this forum.  All Jeff Mehlenbacher has
> done is propose a policy.  He does not sit in conflict on the AC where
> he votes on policies that affect his business.  And that is what most AC
> members do every day.
> 
> May I make a suggestion that any member of the AC who is remotely in
> conflict on an issue should recuse themselves from voting or opining on
> an issue.  Consider the case of Owen, whose company would benefit from a
> faster conversion to IPV6, and whose attitudes on policy suggest he
> would not like to see IPv4 made more readily available:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Let's let 24 months sink in long enough to have real data before we try
> to push the line significantly farther in what I consider to be the
> wrong direction.
> 
> Owen
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> If we wait another 24 months while companies clamor for IPv4, whose
> company would that benefit, Owen?  Is this an unbiased opinion?  Don't
> you think you should recuse yourself or perhaps step down from the AC
> for espousing an opinion that benefits your company and does not benefit
> the community at large?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> And Mr Dan Alexander, how can you have an opinion on needing IPv4
> addresses, when the ARIN clearly took care of its own in 2010?  How can
> someone from Comcast possibly speak as myself?  Are you offering to
> recuse yourself from Comcast for the 30 minutes you look at ARIN stuff? 
> Did you recuse yourself from ARIN when Comcast was granted the large
> allocation in 2010?
> 
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2010/11/02/arin-grants-comcast-ipv4-mega-allocation/
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm opposed to this proposal.
> 
> Dan Alexander
> Speaking as myself
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think the ARIN AC and Board should consider conflict of interest
> situations and when it is appropriate and not appropriate to voice an
> opinion and to vote on issues in front of the Board.  And I would not be
> saying this if the business model of our company was not attacked by a
> member of the ARIN AC in this forum - totally inappropriate behavior
> even for a body that has members in constant conflict and is above
> normal business ethics.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think it's time the silent minority scolded the AC for this bad
> behavior.    Your support in suggesting that the AC members not vote on
> issues where they self-benefit, would be a great help to a free market
> internet.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Secondly, I am highly critical of ARIN, the ARIN AC, and the ARIN Board,
> for not understanding their most important function and purpose with
> respect to legacy addresses.  If you truly want to protect and safeguard
> the Internet, consider the following:
> 
> The most important function ARIN can provide with respect to legacy
> resources is an accurate registry. Failure to do this jeopardizes the
> financial and social safety of the internet. 
> 
> Current ARIN policies in fact do not ensure an accurate registry and
> thus do not support a safe Internet. 
> 
> Today many legacy address holders do not have contracts with ARIN. The
> prudent ones avoid contracts with ARIN because they correctly recognize
> legacy addresses will ultimately be worth more than non legacy addresses
> on the open market. 
> 
> A /16 seller typically complies with ARIN policy in selling because it
> is not worth the relatively small sale proceeds to risk ARIN’s threat
> of court action, even though there is little likelihood that ARIN would
> prevail in court. A larger block seller is not afraid of the court costs
> or of losing in court, but may fear the stigma of publicity. 
> 
> When a legacy IP holder chooses not to comply with ARIN policies,
> problems begin, because the IP holder also dodges the registry update
> step. When there is no corresponding registry to reflect these
> transactions, it opens the door for ISPs to receive other announcement
> requests without ARIN registrations and then hijacking and misuse
> becomes easier. Over time, as the ARIN registry has less relevance, the
> registry becomes meaningless as a tool to determine who has permission
> to use IPs and then control becomes more ad hoc. It is then that I
> believe that financial and possibly social misuse of ips will become
> more common. 
> 
> The ARIN AC should realize that while it may never face a legal
> challenge for the reasons outlined two paragraphs ago, it does have a
> social responsibility. IP sales are now common. The right thing to do
> would be to:
> 
> 1) cease to attempt to govern resources over which ARIN has no legal
> right. RIPE and APNIC don't govern legacy resources and the precedent
> they set should be followed by ARIN. 
> 2) Allow transfers of otherwise dormant resources with no needs
> justifications so long as the recipient organizations can be classified
> as an ISP or end user per the NRPM (there I even threw in some
> ARIN-ese). Otherwise they sit unused and no one benefits. If you don't
> stop needs justifications on these blocks, too many of these
> transactions go underground. 
> 3). If you just don't get it, as clearly Owen and others don't want to
> (apparently speaking only as themselves?), a 60 month justification
> period is a poor compromise. 24 months won't keep a transaction from
> going underground. We see that today as legitimate buyers approach us
> and then disappear after they learn from us that they fail the ARIN
> prequalification. 
> 
> So while the ARIN’s AC policy making rules are fine in a bubble, the
> real world is not a bubble. IPs have escalating value, and many IPs will
> be used by entities not listed in ARIN’s registry. I do not see how
> ARIN can reclaim a valued resource from a company that is profiting from
> it, especially when sister RIR’s, RIPE and APNIC, do not make similar
> claims. As the ARIN registry becomes more inaccurate within the current
> ARIN policies, then it will continue to become easier and easier for
> highjacking and misuse. 
> 
> And I have not even spoken to Milton's free market arguments, which by
> the way, are absolutely correct.  The ARIN policies are like wage and
> price controls gone mad.  
> 
> Sandra Brown
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.