[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 168, Issue 32

Christian Lefrançois clefranc at diffusionfermont.ca
Thu Jun 20 13:49:15 EDT 2019


Can you ditch the waiting list AFTER February 2019 entries (or do whatever
serves best the community), and honour what was included in the list before
that?

-----Message d'origine-----
De : ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> De la part de
arin-ppml-request at arin.net
Envoyé : 20 juin 2019 13:45
À : arin-ppml at arin.net
Objet : ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 168, Issue 32

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
        arin-ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        arin-ppml-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        arin-ppml-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List (was:Re:
      Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council
      Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests (Roberts, Orin)
   2. Re: ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List (was:Re:
      Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council
      Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests (Mike Burns)
   3. Re: ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List (John Santos)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:01:05 +0000
From: "Roberts, Orin" <oroberts at bell.ca>
To: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List
        (was:Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory
Council
        Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
Message-ID:
        <1fd25e9241114539be43cecd58b9832d at DG2MBX04-DOR.bell.corp.bce.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

IE ARIN would be a competitor in a marketplace for which it holds a
monopoly.




Orin Roberts
IP PROVISIONING
Bell Canada


-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Sent: June-20-19 12:57 PM
To: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [EXT]Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List
(was:Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council
Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

Oppose

I have no problem with the idea of getting rid of the waiting list part of
the proposal.

I do have a problem with an auction, as I think it will cause lots of issues
when ARIN revokes resources, because it certainly will be alleged that "ARIN
did it for the money", as has already been discussed, and will make any
legal action a lot more costly. The Board choosing to use auction proceeds
for legal costs would be like pouring gasoline on a fire, and I note that
the Board could choose to spend auction proceeds in this fashion, since how
to spend the proceeds is totally under their control.

Rather than an auction, I propose putting the returns in the 4.10 Dedicated
IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment.  This pool is limited to a /24
maximum.  This use would also promote IPv6 use.

This would leave the marketplace as the only source of IPv4 addresses
greater than a /24.  It would also effectively limit any "free" addresses to
smaller players.

If we are giving out "Free" addresses at ARIN, why not impose a condition
that the addresses so provided be used as part of IPv6 deployment?

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Alyssa Moore wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Trying to do a temperature check here. If you're following this 
> thread, please indicate whether you support or oppose this draft policy.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:42 AM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I?ve read it, and here is my reaction:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This policy requires legal comment. ARIN?s Articles and Bylaws do 
>>> not specifically prohibit ARIN from monetizing returned or revoked 
>>> resources by selling those resources into the transfer market
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So point #1 is that this proposed policy does not violate any 
>>> articles or bylaws.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Today, ARIN does not financially benefit in any material way from 
>>> such revocations. Adoption of this policy would for the first time 
>>> allow the party in a contested revocation situation to argue that 
>>> ARIN seeks to financially benefit. Avoiding that concern is also
significant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am totally unimpressed with this argument. If ARIN revokes 
>>> addresses for nonpayment it is financially benefiting from the
revocation is it not?
>>> It is basically taking them back because it is not getting paid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If ARIN ?gets paid? by selling the numbers into the transfer market 
>>> what is the difference exactly?
>>>
>>
>> Referring to the waiting list policy, the Draft Policy says, "this 
>> policy provides valuable number resources essentially for free".
>>
>> Yes, ARIN currently financially benefits, but currently, that benefit 
>> is at a level of cost recovery, "essentially for free" as stated above.
>> Whereas, if ARIN were to dispose of resources using the market, the 
>> level of financial benefit is likely to be orders of magnitude larger.
>> Furthermore, if this wasn't the case, then the impact on the market 
>> and the potential for fraud supposedly created by the waiting list, 
>> that the draft policy proposes to mitigate, wouldn't exist in the first
place.
>>
>> In short, "what is the difference", probably, several orders of 
>> magnitude in the level of financial benefit involved. Where the 
>> financial motivations from simple "cost recovery" can probably be 
>> summarily dismissed by the court. Whereas the potential financial 
>> motivations, that one might even call a windfall, from market-based 
>> transactions probably at least needs to be examined and evaluated by 
>> the court, and probably wouldn't be summarily dismissed. The outcome 
>> of the two situations might be the same in the end, but the level of 
>> effort involved defending and the level of risk of an adverse ruling, are
not the same at all.
>>
>> More generally, ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful 
>> and counter to its overall mission, but doesn't directly violate its 
>> Articles and Bylaws.
>>
>> That said that doesn't mean ARIN can't implement the policy, but 
>> these risks need to be evaluated when compared to other alternatives 
>> being considered, along with the possible benefits this policy could have
as well.
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information 
>> Technology University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-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:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:26:27 -0400
From: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
To: "'Roberts, Orin'" <oroberts at bell.ca>, "'ARIN-PPML List'"
        <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List
        (was:Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory
Council
        Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests
Message-ID: <009401d5278d$4a981310$dfc83930$@iptrading.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"

ARIN would be a competitor AND a regulator in the marketplace.

I oppose the idea and support the idea of placing returned and revoked
addresses in 4.10.
Actually I proposed that as a new policy a few days ago but maybe it got
lost or I filled out the template wrong.

Regards,
Mike Burns


-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Roberts, Orin
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 1:01 PM
To: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List
(was:Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council
Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

IE ARIN would be a competitor in a marketplace for which it holds a
monopoly.




Orin Roberts
IP PROVISIONING
Bell Canada


-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Sent: June-20-19 12:57 PM
To: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [EXT]Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List
(was:Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council
Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

Oppose

I have no problem with the idea of getting rid of the waiting list part of
the proposal.

I do have a problem with an auction, as I think it will cause lots of issues
when ARIN revokes resources, because it certainly will be alleged that "ARIN
did it for the money", as has already been discussed, and will make any
legal action a lot more costly. The Board choosing to use auction proceeds
for legal costs would be like pouring gasoline on a fire, and I note that
the Board could choose to spend auction proceeds in this fashion, since how
to spend the proceeds is totally under their control.

Rather than an auction, I propose putting the returns in the 4.10 Dedicated
IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment.  This pool is limited to a /24
maximum.  This use would also promote IPv6 use.

This would leave the marketplace as the only source of IPv4 addresses
greater than a /24.  It would also effectively limit any "free" addresses to
smaller players.

If we are giving out "Free" addresses at ARIN, why not impose a condition
that the addresses so provided be used as part of IPv6 deployment?

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Alyssa Moore wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Trying to do a temperature check here. If you're following this 
> thread, please indicate whether you support or oppose this draft policy.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:42 AM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I?ve read it, and here is my reaction:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This policy requires legal comment. ARIN?s Articles and Bylaws do 
>>> not specifically prohibit ARIN from monetizing returned or revoked 
>>> resources by selling those resources into the transfer market
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So point #1 is that this proposed policy does not violate any 
>>> articles or bylaws.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Today, ARIN does not financially benefit in any material way from 
>>> such revocations. Adoption of this policy would for the first time 
>>> allow the party in a contested revocation situation to argue that 
>>> ARIN seeks to financially benefit. Avoiding that concern is also
significant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am totally unimpressed with this argument. If ARIN revokes 
>>> addresses for nonpayment it is financially benefiting from the
revocation is it not?
>>> It is basically taking them back because it is not getting paid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If ARIN ?gets paid? by selling the numbers into the transfer market 
>>> what is the difference exactly?
>>>
>>
>> Referring to the waiting list policy, the Draft Policy says, "this 
>> policy provides valuable number resources essentially for free".
>>
>> Yes, ARIN currently financially benefits, but currently, that benefit 
>> is at a level of cost recovery, "essentially for free" as stated above.
>> Whereas, if ARIN were to dispose of resources using the market, the 
>> level of financial benefit is likely to be orders of magnitude larger.
>> Furthermore, if this wasn't the case, then the impact on the market 
>> and the potential for fraud supposedly created by the waiting list, 
>> that the draft policy proposes to mitigate, wouldn't exist in the first
place.
>>
>> In short, "what is the difference", probably, several orders of 
>> magnitude in the level of financial benefit involved. Where the 
>> financial motivations from simple "cost recovery" can probably be 
>> summarily dismissed by the court. Whereas the potential financial 
>> motivations, that one might even call a windfall, from market-based 
>> transactions probably at least needs to be examined and evaluated by 
>> the court, and probably wouldn't be summarily dismissed. The outcome 
>> of the two situations might be the same in the end, but the level of 
>> effort involved defending and the level of risk of an adverse ruling, are
not the same at all.
>>
>> More generally, ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful 
>> and counter to its overall mission, but doesn't directly violate its 
>> Articles and Bylaws.
>>
>> That said that doesn't mean ARIN can't implement the policy, but 
>> these risks need to be evaluated when compared to other alternatives 
>> being considered, along with the possible benefits this policy could have
as well.
>>
>> --
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information 
>> Technology University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>> ===============================================
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-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:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 13:45:17 -0400
From: John Santos <john at egh.com>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List
Message-ID: <b29c26e9-4b24-354b-f4d5-e98181e1aa79 at egh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Oppose

On 6/20/2019 12:27 PM, Alyssa Moore wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Trying to do a temperature check here. If you're following this 
> thread, please indicate whether you support or oppose this draft policy.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:42 AM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu 
> <mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM Mueller, Milton L
>     <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
>         OK, I?ve read it, and here is my reaction:
>
>             This policy requires legal comment. ARIN?s Articles and
>             Bylaws do not specifically prohibit ARIN from monetizing
>             returned or revoked resources by selling those resources
>             into the transfer market
>
>             So point #1 is that this proposed policy does not violate
>             any articles or bylaws.
>
>             Today, ARIN does not financially benefit in any material
>             way from such revocations. Adoption of this policy would
>             for the first time allow the party in a contested
>             revocation situation to argue that ARIN seeks to
>             financially benefit. Avoiding that concern is also
>             significant.
>
>         I am totally unimpressed with this argument. If ARIN revokes
>         addresses for nonpayment it is financially benefiting from the
>         revocation is it not? It is basically taking them back because
>         it is not getting paid.
>
>         If ARIN ?gets paid? by selling the numbers into the transfer
>         market what is the difference exactly?
>
>
>     Referring to the waiting list policy, the Draft Policy says, "this
>     policy provides valuable number resources essentially for free".
>
>     Yes, ARIN currently financially benefits, but currently, that
>     benefit is at a level of cost recovery, "essentially for free" as
>     stated above. Whereas, if ARIN were to dispose of resources using
>     the market, the level of financial benefit is likely to be orders
>     of magnitude larger. Furthermore, if this wasn't the case, then
>     the impact on the market and the potential for fraud supposedly
>     created by the waiting list, that the draft policy proposes to
>     mitigate, wouldn't exist in the first place.
>
>     In short, "what is the difference", probably, several orders of
>     magnitude in the level of financial benefit involved. Where the
>     financial motivations from simple "cost recovery" can probably be
>     summarily dismissed by the court. Whereas the potential financial
>     motivations, that one might even call a windfall, from
>     market-based transactions probably at least needs to be examined
>     and evaluated by the court, and probably wouldn't be summarily
>     dismissed. The outcome of the two situations might be the same in
>     the end, but the level of effort involved defending and the level
>     of risk of an adverse ruling, are not the same at all.
>
>     More generally, ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful
>     and counter to its overall mission, but doesn't directly violate
>     its Articles and Bylaws.
>
>     That said that doesn't mean ARIN can't implement the policy, but
>     these risks need to be evaluated when compared to other
>     alternatives being considered, along with the possible benefits
>     this policy could have as well.
>
>     --
>     ===============================================
>     David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
>     Networking & Telecommunication Services
>     Office of Information Technology
>     University of Minnesota
>     2218 University Ave SE? ? ? ? Phone: 612-626-0815
>     Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029?? Cell: 612-812-9952
>     ===============================================
>     _______________________________________________
>     ARIN-PPML
>     You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>     the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>     <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>     Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>     https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>     Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>     experience any issues.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190620/6918a4cf/at
tachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml


------------------------------

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 168, Issue 32
******************************************



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list