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

Sat Sep 26 22:48:05 EDT 2015

At this point, I support anything that looks like a compromise so we can get *any* change in policy at all... So this looks like a decent compromise to me.  Yes, it'll have to be revisited in a couple of years' time; yes, the specifics probably aren't perfect.  The community can change those.  The policy can even be written such that ARIN staff can change them independently (although this doesn't seem to be a popular model).
Insisting on perfection is just hamstringing the entire service region... both the speculators *and* legitimate users.
-Adam


On September 26, 2015 8:47:46 PM CDT, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu> wrote:
>I find Bill's proposal an interesting middle ground approach. I do not
>believe completely eliminating needs-based justification for addresses
>is
>the correct thing to do.
>
>--
>Brian
>
>On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Bill Buhler <bill at tknow.com> wrote:
>
>> Having watched this for the last couple of years let me make a couple
>of
>> observations / one proposal:
>>
>>
>>
>> There seems to be a lot of fear on both sides of this debate, on the
>needs
>> test side there seems to be a complete fear of monopolization of the
>IP
>> address space by those with deep pockets.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other side there seem to be a couple of thoughts:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.       It’s a market, markets work best when freed from constraints
>> that increase the complexity of non-harmful transactions, and that
>allowing
>> companies to more freely exchange IP resources is not harmful.
>>
>> 2.        Not liking to justify future and current operations to a
>third
>> party / fear of rejection by this process.
>>
>>
>>
>> I may not have encapsulated both arguments well, and these have been
>> hashed over again and again for the last few years. So what is
>different
>> today? ARIN has allocated every last resource from the free pool, and
>has a
>> long waiting list.
>>
>>
>>
>> So what if we strike a compromise? What if some restrictions were put
>on
>> allocation size and frequency without a needs test and left only the
>truly
>> large or frequent transactions to do it. Something like this:
>>
>>
>>
>> Every legal entity can obtain up to a /22 from the transfer market
>every
>> year, in up to two transactions. They may not transfer these
>resources out
>> of their network within twelve months. Each legal entity has to
>occupy a
>> unique address (suite level) from any other entity in the ARIN
>database.
>>
>>
>>
>> All transfers larger than a /22 need to have needs based
>justification
>> done based on the current model.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you wanted to speculate, you would need to spin-up dozens of
>entities
>> all with unique mailstops, and you would have to camp on the
>addresses for
>> a year. Meanwhile the small end users and ISPs could obtain up to a
>/22 of
>> a resource that with a lot of careful use of NAT would support a
>fairly
>> large public network.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Buhler
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
>> Behalf Of *Steven Ryerse
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 11:48 AM
>> *To:* Owen DeLong
>>
>> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
>> needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of
>IPv4
>> netblocks
>>
>>
>>
>> Owens comment from below:
>>
>> “2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses
>can get
>> them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need
>from
>> getting addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Owen’s comment is absolutely false!!!!!  It allows large organizing
>who
>> request resources to get what they need or something smaller.  It
>allows
>> medium size organizations who request resources to get what they need
>or
>> something smaller.  It allows small organizations who request
>resources to
>> get what they need or nothing, and there is no other source to get
>> resources if ARIN rejects a request, but the open market which Owen
>and
>> others seem to wish did not exist!
>>
>>
>>
>> It is time to fix this inequity and removing needs tests would be a
>big
>> help to small organizations who really need resources!
>>
>>
>>
>> *Steven Ryerse*
>>
>> *President*
>>
>> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338*
>>
>> *770.656.1460 <770.656.1460> - Cell*
>>
>> *770.399.9099 <770.399.9099>- Office*
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠
>Eclipse
>> Networks, Inc.
>>
>>         Conquering Complex Networks℠
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *Owen DeLong
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:24 PM
>> *To:* elvis at velea.eu
>> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
>> needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of
>IPv4
>> netblocks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:42 , Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at velea.eu>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On 25/09/15 06:46, Richard J. Letts wrote:
>>
>> b)
>> There is no definitive outcome from the policy change, which makes me
>feel
>> that it's not worth changing -- the problem statement argument is
>weak at
>> best.
>>
>> the outcome is that everyone that will need IP addresses will be able
>to
>> get them. Isn't that quite definitive and clear?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure, except it isn’t actually an outcome of the proposal on many
>levels:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. The proposal does nothing to guarantee a supply of addresses or
>even
>> increase the supply.
>>
>> 2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can
>get
>> them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need
>from
>> getting addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them.
>>
>> 3. The definitive outcome from the policy change, if there is such,
>is
>> that those without need will now be more easily able to acquire
>addresses,
>> potentially preventing those with need from acquiring them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is potentially enabling organizations with more money than need
>gain
>> more resources, potentially at the expense of non-profit and
>educational
>> organizations who might not be able to raise cash for additional IPv4
>space
>> [or equipment to support a transition to IPv6].
>>
>> So, you think that in today's market the non-profit/educational
>> organizations will have the chance at getting some of the IP space
>from the
>> market? And if the needs-based barrier is removed, they will no
>longer have
>> that chance?
>> Everyone knows that the IP address is now an asset and is worth a
>buck.
>> Who do you think will say: I'll give it for free to this educational
>> organization (because they have proven the need to ARIN) instead of
>giving
>> it for money to this commercial entity (that may or may not have a
>> demonstrated need need for it).
>>
>>
>>
>> Contrary to your statement, there have been addresses returned to
>ARIN and
>> there have been organizations who chose to transfer addresses to
>those they
>> found worthy rather than maximize the monetization of those
>addresses.
>>
>>
>>
>> OTOH, having a policy like this in place certainly makes it easier to
>> manipulate the market to maximize the price.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we need to wake up. Keeping needs-based criteria in the
>policy
>> will only cause SOME transfers to be driven underground and block
>some
>> others.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think claiming that those of us who believe needs-based criteria is
>> still useful are asleep is unwarranted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Changing policy just to (potentially) improve the accuracy of a
>database
>> seems not worth the (potential) risk.
>>
>> The change of the accuracy of the registry is already proven in the
>RIPE
>> region. I would say it's not just potential, it is real and visible.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How was
>> RIPE-NCC accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to what
>extent
>> was it improved as a result of this policy change. What mechanism was
>used
>> to determine that the measured increase in accuracy was the result of
>the
>> particular policy abandoning needs-based evaluation?
>>
>>
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> regards,
>> Elvis
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on
>behalf
>> of Dani Roisman <droisman at softlayer.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:20 PM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
>needs-based
>> evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
>>
>> | Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:53:59 -0400
>> | From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
>> | To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> | Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
>needs-based
>> |       evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4
>> netblocks
>> | Message-ID: <56031167.1010007 at arin.net>
>> | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>> |
>> | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
>> | Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4
>> | transfers of IPv4 netblocks
>> |
>> | On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>> | "ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2,
>8.3,
>> | and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy.
>> |
>> | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at:
>> | https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> There has been some stimulating dialog about the merits of 2015-9. 
>I'd
>> like to ask that in addition to any overall support or lack thereof,
>you
>> also review the policy language and comment specifically on the
>changes
>> proposed:
>> a) For those of you generally in support of this effort, are there
>any
>> refinements to the changes made which you think will improve this
>should
>> these policy changes be implemented?
>> b) For those of you generally opposed to this effort, are there any
>> adjustments to the policy changes which, if implemented, would gain
>your
>> support?
>>
>> --
>> Dani Roisman
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150926/d1ef3544/attachment.htm>