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

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Thu Sep 6 22:28:54 EDT 2012

I agree and Canadian cable operators should be fully supported by ARIN like anyone else committed to advancing the Internet.  I think the old adage of you can't fight city hall applies even though they should continue to try.  If this is meant seriously I would oppose.  

Steven Ryerse
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Benson Schliesser
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:51 PM
To: William Herrin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy proposal: Penalize IPv4 bad actors

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?


On 9/6/12 4:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>      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

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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list