[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Dec 17 16:14:06 EST 2014


I'm sorry, but your argument is utterly specious.

First, the community includes ANYONE who chooses to participate and all comers participate on an equal footing.

The Small ORG cannot possibly have been shut out because there are simply far too many small and x-small orgs that have address space from ARIN for that to be a viable statement.

To wit:

https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/historical.html

Shows that there are a total of 1,886 organizations that received addresses from ARIN in 2006-2007 (sorry, I don't know why more current data is not available there). Of those, 1029 were small and 777 were x-small. That's 1806 of 1886 organizations. Only 80 large and x-large organizations.

If each of those 1806 organizations were to vote in the next three election cycles, they could completely replace the board and the AC.

If they were to actively participate in the PDP, they would have overwhelming majority and be able to strongly drive consensus in any direction they wanted.

Yes, decisions are made by those who choose to participate. Just as in all other aspects of life, there is little value or credence given to those who stand on the sidelines and complain about being on the sidelines. I realize you aren't still standing on the sidelines, but you're still complaining about everyone else being "SHUT OUT" when the reality is that all they would have to do to change that is choose to participate.

The words "SHUT OUT" simply don't apply because their participation would be welcome, even encouraged just as yours has been.

As to your statements about the shepherd's handling of your policy, I'll leave that between you, the AC chair, and the shepherds. If it is as you describe, that doesn't sound right to me. Did you consider availing yourself of the petition process?

I admit I did vote to abandon your policy. I also commented publicly on it and we discussed my opposition, so I don't think it came as any sort of surprise to you. The dates of the AC conference calls are public information and each item on our docket is discussed and can be subject to motion (and vote) at each of those calls. Your policy also received substantial negative feedback and very little support on the mailing list.

Finally, I simply don't see how a small org can be "SHUT OUT" when current policy allows any organization that can show utilization of 128 host addresses within 30 days to get an IPv4 allocation or assignment. The multihoming requirements have been removed. The bar has been lowered to a /24 for all minima. If your organization is smaller than that, then even if we were to grant a "right-sized" assignment, you wouldn't be able to get it routed anyway, so I'm not sure what you think the point would be.

Owen


> On Dec 16, 2014, at 18:40 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> 
> I would point out that I submitted proposal 2014-18 which would have removed needs testing only on the minimum sized allocations – so yes I am trying to fix it at the low end.  I think the Needs testing needs to be scrapped altogether as was done in the Europe region in favor of right size testing but that isn’t the battle I’m trying to fight. 
>  
> A more pointed example of what I find wrong with needs testing rather than right sizing allocations per the size of the org and their network would be this:
>  
> A group of folks who all have one or more .com domain name allocation(s) and are all running one or more web sites using those allocations on the Internet gets together to form a “Community” to Advance the use of the Internet.  At a particular point in time the various opinions of the members of this community aggregate their then current opinions and Best Practices on how .com domains should be managed and allocated, and a set of .com domain allocation policies are formed.  Of course since the policies are essentially an aggregate of the opinions of the members of that community at that time - they are arbitrary - and hopefully but there is no guarantee, that there has been wisdom and fairness built into these policies.  As time goes on more opinions from this Community are aggregated and the .com domain policies are modified and hopefully improved but of course there is no guarantee of that since they are an aggregated arbitrary collection of hopefully best practice opinions formed into policies.   One day a very small org decides it is in their best interest to apply for an allocation for one domain name so they can have a web site.  They are willing to pay the fee for it and they check the registry database and find that abc123doreme.com <http://abc123doreme.com/> has not been allocated to anyone - and so they apply to have it allocated to them.  Unfortunately for that small org, the policies have been modified over time and based on applying the then current policies (which are and always will be arbitrary), the request for that one unallocated domain name is rejected per current Policy.  Of course the effect of this rejected allocation request is that this small org can NOT bring up their web site using the denied domain name.  Even though it may or may not have been the intent of this .com domain “Community” to shut out the small Org from using the Internet in the way they felt was in their best Interest, THE SMALL ORG HAS BEEN SHUT OUT BY THIS .COM ALLOCATION “COMMUNITY” via policies)!  This small Org doesn’t think it is fair that the others got a .com allocation - and there is one available - and they still can’t get even ONE!  Many of these folks who now have one or many .com allocation(s) would not be able to get their existing .com allocation(s) today under the current .com allocation policies as currently defined by this .com allocation Community.  This small Org didn’t apply for many .com domain names – they applied for the Minimum of one of them.  And of course they are correct – the polices the .com allocation Community aggregated did in fact shut out this one small Org from bringing up their valued web site because they were denied the resources required to do so by the only official “Community” in their region that can give them approval.  Worse yet other small Orgs continue to get denied by the current policies.  Instead of the Internet being Advanced by the Community’s Policies which of course was originally put in the Mission Statement so that everyone would know their Mission, application of the Policies has done the exact opposite and this small Org and others who have been denied have suffered. 
>  
> I know that at least some Members of this ARIN region Community wish I would stop badgering this community about the unfairness of how policies are applied to small Orgs, but I will NEVER stop complaining as long as I can breathe and type, until the aggregate opinions of the ARIN community come together to right this wrong. 
>  
> I tried to submit a simple policy change in an attempt to use the current system of policies to hopefully fix this.  I asked members of this community if they might have any changes to my proposed language to improve the proposed policy to try and fix this.  But in the end my policy proposal was voted down by the AC without even one email from the assigned Shepard(s) telling me a vote was even scheduled - and without checking to see if I might have any additional input for them to consider before they voted.  What a system!
>  
> Are there not any members of good will in the ARIN community who are willing to band together to finally fix this in a responsible way?  Community Members?  The Board? ARIN Management?  Anyone out there?  
>  
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>  
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:14 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Use
>  
> Then your issue is with how needs basis was being applied to IPv4 3 years ago (and perhaps you also have issues with how it is currently being applied), rather than needs basis in general.
>  
> Thus, your continued railing against all needs testing distracts from rather than enabling work towards an improvement to IPv4 needs basis that might resolve your issue. Arguing to eliminate needs testing creates a binary argument where those of us who believe needs testing is essential to good stewardship vs. those who want to eliminate it altogether.
>  
> On the other hand, working towards a relaxed set of needs tests that meet the needs of more of the community is something I think most of the community would get behind. Previous experience has shown this to be generally true.
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:10 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22 IPv4 block (the minimum at the time), and an ASN number.  The online application asked me some questions which I answered.  Once it was processed I was notified that the IPv6 block and the ASN number were allocated to me, and the IPv4 block allocation was denied.  This was about 3 years ago and at the time I thought the questions I was asked were reasonable.  I don’t recall having to provide anything else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider. 
>  
> I don’t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions but I have a strong issue with using the answers to those questions to deny an applicant the minimum block size.  Regardless of the original intent, the effect is the haves keeping the have nots from getting resources and this falls squarely on small organizations.  My opinion. 
>  
> Steven L Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099 - Office
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>  
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has been needs testing for IPv6.
>  
> Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if IPv6 wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.
>  
> As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN.  My IPv6 comment below was concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠
>  
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and assignments.
>  
> Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?
>  
> Owen
>  
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
>  
> I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this year – advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream when I read it!  
>  
> As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn’t go out the window because of Internet changes.
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
>  
> The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.  If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with virtually no trouble. 
> When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
> Kevin
>  
>  
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for their garage - could they get them?  Whether you like what they did or not they certainly have advanced the Internet.  And if John and Sue are working in their garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can they get them?  With today’s policies – probably not as they might not have a business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding - or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy.  What a shame! 
>  
>  
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>  
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠
>  
> From: Bill Darte [mailto:billdarte at gmail.com <mailto:billdarte at gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Jo Rhett; arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
>  
> Steven Ryerse said: 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?
>  
> The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be needs-based..IMO.  They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its mission calls for.  That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.  Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.
>  
> Bill Darte
>  
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your feedback.  Your description of "walk away with someone else’s belongings" seems to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe ARIN and this Community.
> 
> I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet.  When I read the original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that "needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and allocation.  Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of the mission of advancement and allocation.
> 
> In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing the Internet.  Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from getting resources?  How does that advance the Internet?  I never met Jon Postel but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the current policies regarding needs.  My comments below and others I have made are intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that some day in the near future that will happen.  I certainly don't desire there be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked pretty well advancing the Internet.  I think we could loosen the current policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive outcome.  My two cents.
> 
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com <http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
> 770.656.1460 <tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
> 770.399.9099 <tel:770.399.9099>- Office
> 
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>                      Conquering Complex Networks℠
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com <mailto:jrhett at netconsonance.com>]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
> 
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com <mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:
> > If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled.  I think it is important to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or third or fifth or whatever.  We could stop all fraud by stopping all allocations but of course that makes no sense.  I would also point out that even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
> 
> I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing their job.
> 
> > Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.
> 
> Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else’s belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without making any sense at all.
> 
> > I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary (and they are arbitrary) policy.
> 
> I disagree completely. ARIN’s role is to satisfy needs-based requests. Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
> 
> The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all. Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
> 
> --
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798 <tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141217/24aca73a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list