[arin-ppml] Micfo

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <007FA0F2-34D8-45E9-9171-2E82441080C4 at delong.com>, 
Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>...

Rather than quoting own at length, Ill just hit the high points 
of his response to my call for a formal plan to deal with dead
or dying ISPs.

Firstly, I'd like to just remind Owen that this was *not* an issue
that I unilaterally raised.  David Farmer expressed the concern.
and I merely echoed and expanded upon his posting.

If Owen and a majority of others think that the status quo is just fine
and that it is none of ARIN's business to be concerned with such things,
then I have a couple of responses:

    *)  Don't tell me.  Tell David Farmer.  I'm not the one who brought
        it up.

    *)  OK, fine, have it your own way.  If an "innocent" gets caught
        and suddenly has no connectivity because his/her/its ISP was
        just hit by a tsunami, then fine.  F**k 'em!  Let them eat cake!
        As long as it doesn't impact me, then I have no reason to give
        a rat's ass.  If everyone else feels that way then I'd be a damn
        fool to feel any different.

As regards to the rest of Owen's points...

     *)  Yes, ICANN is in the enviable position of being able to "turn
         off a miscreant reseller of its main commodity,. domain names,
         with the flick of a switch, as it were, because it has the keys
         to the root zone.  And no, ARIN does not control routers.
         But ARIN *does* have direct and complete control over its part
         of the in-addr.arpa DNS tree, *and* also the ARIN WHOIS data base,
         and it can do whatver it is authorized to do, by the membership,
         with those.  So the situateion *is* in fact somewhat analogous.

     *)  Yes, ISPs really are resellers of what ARIN gives them, just as
         domain registrars are resellers of the stuff that ICANN gives them.
         To claim otherwise is to deny simple factual reality.


Regards,
rfg


P.s.   I actually *do not* think that ARIN should be concerned with caring
for "innocents" who have had the bad judgement to purchase IP addresses
that are obtained via fraud, *or* ones that are registered to an ISP that
suddenly goes bankrupt.  Caveat emptor.  If the police come and take away
the car that you just bought because it is, unbeknownst to you, actually
stolen, then you'll be heartbroken, but its your own damn fault for not
being more careful.

But David Farmer advised caution... as all ARIN members seem to advise all
of the time  when it comes to anything novel in the way of policy ideas...
lest we unfairly create difficulties for poor widdle "innocents" who have
foolishly bought IP addresses from an ISP that takes their money and then
disappears in some manner.

My point is this:  This community can't have it both ways.  It either *is*
seriously concerned with the harm the befalls "innocents" when they buy
IP addresses from middlemen who may disappear tomorrow, for whatever
reason, or else it isn't.  If it is, then it should get busy making a
rational, well-thought-out and compassionate plan for dealing with such
"innocents".   Conversely, if the community *doesn't* actually give a rat's
ass about the fate of such foolish and uncareful buyers, then David
Farmer should retract his advice to proceed with caution, e.g. when it
comes to terminating the likes of Micfo and kicking their asses to the
curb, expeditiously and with extreme prejuduce.