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

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Owen,

On 25/09/15 21:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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?
so you are saying that only companies that move bits between 
customers/other organisations are in the internet service business?

what about the RIRs? or the I* organizations ? I doubt they move bits 
for customers.. are they also excluded from your list or they do offer 
internet services? if the latter, what is then the difference?

>
> 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.
we are discussing a policy change on the ARIN PPML list, not on nanog... 
and I am not even sure why you keep talking about this.. It really does 
not matter what the company I work for does, we are discussing here as 
citizens interested in the policies.
>
>>> 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.
I talk here in my name and not in the name of my company. Same as you 
and most of the people on this list.
>
>> 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 did not say that we will support transfers outside the system.. 
actually, this is our problem. Because we want to comply with the policy 
and because we do not close our eyes to potential customers violating 
the policies, we lose those potential customers.
>
> 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.
I think you are looking at this from the wrong direction. I do want to 
have more customers and the removal of the needs based criteria will 
help. But you misunderstand the reasons behind it. I have repeated them 
several times already...

If a potential buyer has the money and wants to buy the resource (in 
order to use them, or keep them for a few years - maybe they want to 
make sure that they will never run out) they will buy them.. through 
financial artifices if they can not do it through the brokers and with 
ARIN's blessing.
>
> It was never my intent to attack you personally.
I did take it personally, "Elvis, OTOH is not in the internet services 
business." - how would you call that?
>
>> 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 think you have a strange way to classify internet services and the 
businesses offering these services. You seem to include only ISPs and 
hosting companies in this category, while I think that all companies 
offering various services to the internet 'actors' should be included. 
Whether these services are offered by non-for-profit (RIRs, ISTARs, etc) 
or for-profit (brokers, consultants, some research companies, etc), 
these are services that - from my point of view - are part of the 
internet services businesses.
>
> 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.
thank you for clarifying that. I was surprised to see an AC member so 
passionate to combat a policy proposal shepherd by other AC member(s).
>
> Owen
>
>
cheers,
elvis