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

[Avri Doria]

There are so many messages I want to respond to, but have been preoccupied with names, not 'numbers' for the last bit.  Plus I have only a tablet, and it does not have proper email support.

A question though, while I sort of understand why legacies can't vote, sort of, I wonder do your rules allow for legacies, or even non address holders, to be elected (not that you all would want, to, I understand).  If not, though calling them members of the community seems a stretch. They should be stakeholders, but they aren't treated that way. Sure we can contribute on a list, but that is only a first small step in inclusion.

I admit also that I can't think of myself as a member of a community that considers my behavior illegitimate and thinks of the thing we believe in as more like a disease than a reasonable alternative. 

Note: I accept the need to be properly listed in the directory and that the RIRs are the guardians of the directories, and am cleaning up my act. I am still concerned for those who would not be allowed to clean up their act because as opposed to being legacies, they acquired from legacies. But I will address the many good arguments people have made in the last weeks once I get back to a real laptop and am no longer trying to live by tablet alone.

avri


Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>On Jun 29, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/12, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>> oops. You may not realize it, but you just admitted that there is no
>such
>>> thing as "the community." You've observed that the people involved
>here fall
>>> into a variety of different groupings with different interests -
>legacy
>>> holders, speculators, prospective buyers who "want more resources
>than they
>>> can justify," and others, good guys like you and Hurricane and
>Comcast.
>> 
>> Let's be really really clear.  The ARIN community consists of
>> Internet Service Providers and network operators,  that require
>> number resources for the purpose of connecting their networks
>> together,  using IP, and require the WHOIS service to help coordinate
>> with other networks, for reliable connectivity, and minimal network
>> abuse.    If you're anyone else, you are not a member of the
>community
>> that it's ARIN's job to provide services to.
>> 
>
>This simply isn't true. The community is much more encompassing than
>those that ARIN provides registration services to.
>
>The community is literally anyone with an interest in IP address
>policy.
>
>The voting membership (those that elect the AC and the Board) are ARIN
>members that hold resources.
>
>One need not be a member of ARIN in order to be a member of the
>community.
>One need not hold resources to be a member of the community.
>One need not operate a network to be a member of the community.
>
>If you are signed up on PPML and participate, you are a member of the
>community.
>
>> If you happen to by coincidence  be both a speculator AND an ISP, or
>> both a prospective buyer, and the operator of a network.
>> 
>> Then you are a member of the community,  but your special interests
>or
>> roles as "speculator",   "prospective buyer",  "academic", or
>> whatever,  have nothing to do with the community, and should be left
>> at home.
>
>For better or worse, speculators, hoarders, derivatives traders, etc.
>are
>actually members of the community if they choose to participate.
>
>> Although you're certainly allowed to share your opinions and views,
>> you should ensure that you disclose any special financial or personal
>> interest you have.
>
>That would be nice, but to the best of my knowledge, it is only
>required
>of AC and Board members where there is a clear conflict of interest
>policy
>that would apply.
>
>> And ARIN in providing proper stewardship of the resources,  should be
>ensuring
>> that factions except "network operator"' organizations (and network
>end user)
>> organizations'   are not being served,
>
>Again, not true. ARIN should be ensuring that those factions do not
>receive
>resource registration services (unless the community decides to permit
>them
>to receive resource registration services through policy changes).
>However,
>they are entitled to the services of participation in the policy
>development
>process just as any network operator, ISP, end user, etc.
>
>> Especially not at the expense of ISPs and network end users  best
>interests
>> specifically in those roles.
>
>Who gets to decide what that best interest is and who qualifies and who
>doesn't?
>What are the criteria for such a decision?
>
>
>> And that should be true,  even if  non-Network operator  factions
>> become more numerous
>> on PPML and policy meetings,   due to the fact the financial
>> incentive,  might encourage
>> more aggressive participation,  in order to manipulate policy.
>
>As much as I fear this eventuality and it is the primary reason that I
>am not
>in favor of pushing 8.3 further down the slippery slope, I'm not sure
>how we
>can remain true to our charter and bylaws and the process we have
>created
>and actually prevent this.
>
>> ARIN should be sure to recognize and reject any manipulation efforts
>of that
>> nature that are not in the interest of the specific  community ARIN
>> exists to serve.
>
>ARIN who? ARIN staff? The ARIN community (in which case, by what
>criteria
>would you define the portion of the community that gets to make such
>decisions)?
>It's all well and good to say "ARIN", but, ARIN isn't a body that takes
>action per se.
>
>>> As my previous message indicated, I have a very strong suspicion
>that the 24
>>> month period is arbitrary and has no more or less support than 60
>months or
>>> 12 months or 6 months. But since you are saying that the data does
>not
>> 
>> The 24 month period is surely an arbitrary number that was chosen,
>but there
>> was some agreement to, but the contention that it  is no more/less
>> supported than 60 months  is wrong.
>
>True. There was quite a bit of opposition to 36 or more months when
>that
>question was asked at the last PPM in Vancouver whereas there was quite
>a bit less opposition to 24 months (though I felt there was significant
>opposition there as well).
>
>>> Tell me: what _kind_ of data would indicate to you that a change is
>>> warranted? Would it be something like a yield curve for address
>blocks?
>> 
>> There are three things that all need to be shown simultaneously,
>> before there's any reason to believe the justification period is too
>> short:
>> 
>> 1. Proof of an unmet need for IP addresses in the region, for the
>> purpose of actually running networks, per the RFC2050 criteria; 
>there
>> must be organizations actively seeking resources who are not getting
>> them,  because there are not enough resources offered by specified
>> transfer.
>> 
>> 2. Lack of interest by organizations seeking IPv4 resources through
>> specified transfer
>> OR  organizations that have unused resources leaving them idle and
>> neither returning
>> to ARIN nor offering by specified transfer  (an actual showing that
>> organizations really are not participating in the transfer market due
>> to the inefficiency caused by the requirement  that they execute
>> multiple transfers instead of just one).
>
>I'm not sure how the first criteria proves that a longer justification
>period
>is needed. Afterall, at a certain point in the (hopefully) not too
>distant
>future, it might merely indicate that IPv4 is no longer expanding.
>
>> 3.   That there is no  equally expensive, less expensive, or more
>> familiar/convenient source of IP addresses than specified transfer.
>> Until (3) is met, there is no possible data that will show that a
>> longer justification period is suitable, justified, necessary, or
>> appropriate.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> For example:  as long as there are free pool resources  available at
>> similar cost,  Transfer is a less attractive option,  because  direct
>> allocation from a pool is adequate,  and with a high likelihood
>> provides  "Virgin"   IP addresses   that have never been allocated
>> before, and probably aren't on blacklists.
>
>This is not necessarily true of all free-pool allocations/assignments.
>Some resources in the freepool are, indeed, recycled.
>
>> Also, as long as there is still a free pool,  organizations in the
>> ARIN region  that have dealt with ARIN in the past are likely to
>> continue to make their additional resource requests  through ARIN,
>> because they have dealt with ARIN in the past,  there is a degree of
>> familiarity and trust.
>
>Yes, though the 3/24 month dichotomy with transfers does put a bit
>of a damper on that.
>
>> Transfer resources must be significantly less expensive, before many
>> organizations will consider taking on added risk of dealing with
>> potentially unfamiliar third parties,  and lengthening the process of
>> getting their resources. They may even prefer to acquire other orgs
>> altogether,  and perform 8.2 transfers instead.
>
>Another thing worth considering is that the transfer market is
>currently
>somewhere between $10 and $12 per address IIRC. Only organizations
>with sufficient revenue to support an ROI on that price would consider
>purchasing them at that price. Many ISPs and other network operators
>are low-margin businesses and it is entirely possible that expanding
>their IPv4 customer base would not provide a sufficient ROI to continue
>expanding with that cost model.
>
>> As long as there is a free pool, the data is expected to be skewed,
>> and therefore
>> unreliable.
>
>Yep.
>
>Owen
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.