[arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

John Santos JOHN at egh.com
Wed Dec 24 01:00:48 EST 2014

Oppose 2014-14

1) /16 is not "small"
2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been
   demonstrated.  "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs 
   testing of small transfers."  Obviously, doing the necessary checking
   requires staff time, but is it a significant amount?  Is it taking much
   longer than it used to?  Is it costing ARIN a lot of money in staff
   wages and overhead to do these assessments, or is it lost in the noise?
3) This proposal not only eliminates needs testing for qualifying transfers, 
   but also removes the requirement for the recipient to sign an RSA.
4) Rearranging the IPv4 deck chairs
5) Pie

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, John Springer wrote:

> Hi PPML and Randy and Steven,
> Subject change and sorry for the top post.
> WRT ARIN Draft Policy 2014-14, Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 
> Transfers, this started out as "ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from 
> Small IPv4 Transfers on 16 April 2014. At the 15 May 2014 ARIN AC 
> teleconference, the motion to move the proposal to a Draft Policy was 
> passed unanimously. Prerequisite to this action was agreement among the AC 
> present that, inter alia, the proposal had a clear problem statement.
> It might still.
> So whatever other failings 2014-14 may have, a unclear problem statement 
> would seem, at least by the AC's definition, not to be one of them.
> As far as the why, ARIN is a community of often polarized interests. The 
> majority does not, and equally importantly, should not, automatically get 
> to quash all things it does not agree with. Obversely, minorities, even 
> despised ones, have the right to work for incremental change in their 
> interests and receive a fair hearing. This would appear to include the 
> right to rational discussion, even if irritation sometimes shows up.
> The shepherd's job is made more difficult by a lot of this talking in 
> code. Clearly this is a beloved behavior, so I won't say cut it out. But. 
> In the case of 2014-14, I don't know if it is going to be enough to say 'I 
> don't like pie', or 'I don't like pie because pie sucks', or 'I don't 
> care. I am never going to like pie', or even 'I am so much smarter than 
> you, that you don't even know pie'. Please, no one take this personally.
> Shepherds are currently contemplating rewriting 2014-14 to accomodate 
> objections even though some objections more resemble the above. I am not 
> completely optimistic about either the rectitude or the efficacy of this 
> move, but am thinking and working on it.
> If anyone might care to comment on the following three choices, I 
> would be grateful:
> 1)	Abandon 2014-14 entirely because... (Don't say pie.)
> 2)	This part of it is clearly wrong because..., do this to fix it.
> 3)	Advance it. I haven't heard any convincing opposition.
> TIA and in reverse to everyone for the comments and the courtesies.
> John Springer

John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list