[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:23 , Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at velea.eu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> On 25/09/15 09:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> It’s not ARIN’s mission to prevent profits nor did I say it was.
>> 
>> My point is that Elvis support for removing policy is strongly influenced by the potential windfall he stands to reap while not actually providing
>> any internet services in the process if the policy is changed as he wishes.
> Please stop implying what influences my beliefs. I doubt you can read my mind.
> 
> I already said it several times that regardless of the outcome, there are plenty of organizations that have already received 'pre-approvals' and helping at least those will fill up my plate.. What do you mean we do not provide an internet service? We offer various services, not just the brokerage part.
>> As yo pointed out, many folks make a profit on various INETERNET SERVICES. Elvis, OTOH is not in the internet services business. He’s strictly
>> an address broker.
> What do you mean by 'not in the internet services business' ? I think you are starting to be rude and would like to ask you to back off a bit.
> We offer various services to our customers: IP management, LIR management, audits, Sponsoring LIR services (RIPE Region), IPv6 migration support, etc…

Do you offer any services involving moving bits between your clients and other organizations?

Or are you strictly in the address marketing/management business?

From everything you have said to me, I’ve been led to believe the latter. If you actually sell access or transit services, hosting, or anything like that, then I stand corrected.

>> It would be sort of like Realtors arguing against transfer taxes on real estate. An argument based solely in greed rather than any actual concern for the common good.
> Again, you are just guessing why I am commenting on this policy proposal. As an ex-RIR employee, I've told you (and others) several times that I still want to do the right thing for the community. I have already made several policy proposals in the RIPE Region (one recently accepted by the community) and I am active in APNIC and now ARIN…

Fair enough, but I’d call it an educated guess based on conversations we’ve had.

> 
> Owen, last time we discussed you said that you understand the need of brokers and while a few years back you did not agree with us existing, now you are no longer against... I see personal attacks in the two e-mails you sent and I don't understand where these come from.

Not exactly.

I said I understand the needs of brokers, not that I saw a need for brokers. Understanding the needs of brokers does not imply a desire to accommodate them.
I did say that I am not opposed to brokers existing and I am not. However, I’m not in favor of supporting them to the detriment of the community, either.

In fact, I have worked with brokers to get IP addresses for organizations. I see no incompatibility between needs basis and brokers working above board.

Your repeated expressions of willingness to conduct transfers outside the system if you can’t do whatever you want within the system are where I take exception. These have been your own words even in this very thread.

I’m sorry you see those as personal attacks. What I am attacking is the idea of contorting policy to suit the profit motives of an ancillary industry to the detriment of those actually building and operating infrastructure.

It was never my intent to attack you personally.

> Owen, please stop guessing what my business does and why I participate in the discussions. I doubt this is what an ARIN AC member should do..

I didn’t think I was guessing what your business did. Everything I said was based on what you told me your business did. I’m sorry if I misunderstood or got it wrong.

I will make clear that my posts here are as a member of the community and not in any official capacity as a member of the AC.

Owen