[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

Bill Darte billdarte at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 14:43:12 EDT 2014


Hi Bill,
We consider ARIN policy to be at fault and are seeking community consensus
to change that policy, Do you have a problem with that approach?

----Of course you do and did I not grant in my post that this back and
forth WAS the policy development process engaged? I have supported that
process for many years and believe it IS the way things must be done.  And,
I understand that you are seeking community consensus in that
discussion....I just note that there seems to be little support to change
the policy in the ARIN region.


I know that what this back and forth is about....policy discussion and
development....to see whether the community has had a see change...but what
I see is that a few people who want it their way...continue to flame the
status quo for maintaining its focus...to my mind...where it still should
be.  Scare resource? Given them to people who NEED them. If the community
should be outrage about something, it should be those who contribute to the
weakness of he database, not those who's stewardship has not failed.

bd

Bill, nobody is *giving* addresses to anybody, regardless of their NEEDS,
so you can disabuse yourself of that pie-eyed notion. And what is flaming
the status quo? Way to encourage participation. I suppose it’s better to
leave the community in their repose of silent focus.

--- you are correct, nobody gives addresses away.  Needs-based allocation
or transfer, I submit is likely to cost those receiving addresses less
overall. Still, there is a financial burden either way. 'Repose of silent
focus'.  I daresay that the community has been quite vocal in their
creation and support of the status quo.  And as far as participation goes,
I only wish that every constituent with the ARIN community would come out
and have their say..one time...about this issue whichever way they choose.
See, I'm for consensus either way because I do believe in the process.

Let’s cut out the stewardship failed nonsense, you are accusing both RIPE
and APNIC communities of failed stewardship because their opinion doesn’t
match your personal one.

--- notice that my comment was not about 'failed stewardship', but the lack
thereof on ARIN's part....my belief that needs-based allocations are proper
stewardship for ARIN in no way disparages the RIPE and APNIC communities
for their policies.  There are 5 RIRs so that the local community can
decide for themselves what policies should exist in their respective
communities.  So please don't attribute those accusations to me.  As I said
above, I have my opinion, but it is the consensus of the community that
counts.  I'd hope that everyone feels the same.

bd


On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

>
>  "Use of the registry database for policy enforcement is not supportive
> of the primary reason for the existence of the registry system (there is a
> reason it's called a "registry").  It is also self-defeating.  Get enough
> folks doing "transfers" outside of registry database and the database is no
> longer meaningful."
>
> Yup, I suppose....and I guess it's no fault blaming those individuals who
> do not heed the community's standards by going outside of policy....no,
> let's consider ARIN to be at fault for responding to community consensus.
>
> Hi Bill,
> We consider ARIN policy to be at fault and are seeking community consensus
> to change that policy, Do you have a problem with that approach?
>
>
> I know that what this back and forth is about....policy discussion and
> development....to see whether the community has had a see change...but what
> I see is that a few people who want it their way...continue to flame the
> status quo for maintaining its focus...to my mind...where it still should
> be.  Scare resource? Given them to people who NEED them. If the community
> should be outrage about something, it should be those who contribute to the
> weakness of he database, not those who's stewardship has not failed.
>
> bd
>
> Bill, nobody is *giving* addresses to anybody, regardless of their NEEDS,
> so you can disabuse yourself of that pie-eyed notion. And what is flaming
> the status quo? Way to encourage participation. I suppose it’s better to
> leave the community in their repose of silent focus.
>
> Let’s cut out the stewardship failed nonsense, you are accusing both RIPE
> and APNIC communities of failed stewardship because their opinion doesn’t
> match your personal one.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:50 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>
>> Gary and Bill,
>>
>>  On Jun 12, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Gary said...
>>
>> "need" is not the same as "want" (see the
>> $10K red button app that was offered for
>> awhile; can anyone explain why anyone
>> would "need" it).  And while some may
>> exchange money for only "want"s, those
>> that can demonstrate "need" can get those
>> transfers approved today and have the
>> registry updated today.  Only the "wants"
>> are having a hard time.  And, in my opinion,
>> that is as it should be.
>>
>>
>> big +1
>>
>>
>> While I consider the angst associated with speculators (or whoever)
>> buying up all the address space overblown (hint: it would merely shorten
>> the already short time horizon of when IPv4 addresses are no longer
>> practically available), the issue I'm most concerned with is "and have the
>> registry updated today."
>>
>> I do not believe given sufficient "want" and money that the lack of
>> updating the registry would sufficient deterrent to preclude a "transfer"
>> from occurring.  The end result being that the address space is no longer
>> traceable after the transfer.
>>
>> Use of the registry database for policy enforcement is not supportive of
>> the primary reason for the existence of the registry system (there is a
>> reason it's called a "registry").  It is also self-defeating.  Get enough
>> folks doing "transfers" outside of registry database and the database is no
>> longer meaningful.
>>
>> I would have no issue with using other tools at ARIN's disposal for
>> policy enforcement, e.g., removing reverse delegations, marking entries in
>> the database as "out of policy" and letting ISPs decide for themselves
>> whether to accept a prefix for routing, invoking contractual penalties,
>> etc.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140612/9ad688a4/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list