[arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors

[Benson Schliesser]

Assuming it's meant seriously, I'm opposed to this proposal. ARIN isn't 
above the law, has no statutory power, is not a regulator. For many 
reasons, ARIN should not be in the business of second-guessing members' 
business plans, legal advice, regulatory frameworks, etc.

But I also confess that I don't have much context for the "Rationale" 
discussion. Can you (or anybody here) provide more details and 
references to what is motivating this?

Thanks,
-Benson


On 9/6/12 4:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
>
>      Policy Proposal Name: Penalize IPv4 bad actors
>      Proposal Originator
>          name: William Herrin
>          email: bill at herrin.us
>          telephone: 703-534-2652
>          organization: Self
>      Proposal Version: 1
>      Date: 9/6/2012
>      Proposal type: new
>      Policy term: temporary, 2 years
>      Policy statement:
>
> Network infrastructure operators who as a condition of access under
> government regulations require third party ISPs to manage IP addresses
> in a manner inconsistent with ARIN policy are themselves ineligible to
> hold ARIN number resources.
>
> If no reasonable technology (deployed or otherwise) could both meet
> the government regulations and permit compliance with ARIN IP address
> policy, this policy shall not apply.
>
>      Rationale:
>
> It has come to light that certain Canadian cable operators have
> attempted to play Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications
> Commission Third Party Internet Access rules off ARIN policy in a
> manner which thwarts ARIN efforts maximize IPv4 address utilization,
> thwarts CRTC efforts to open access to the cable Internet
> infrastructure or does both. While various reasonable sounding
> technical and non-technical explanations for this classic monopoly
> behavior have been offered it is nevertheless reprehensible.
>
> While it is not and should not be ARIN's job to break monopolies, ARIN
> should not permit itself to be played off any government regulatory
> agency to the detriment of the communities each serves.
>
> It is the author's hope that this policy proposal becomes moot long
> before the board need consider adoption as a result of the offenders
> finding a technically and politically feasible way to do the right
> thing.
>
>      Timetable for implementation: 6 months following adoption
>
> END OF TEMPLATE
>