[arin-ppml] Micfo

[Owen DeLong]

> 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.

Well… Yes and no. However, David and I routinely disagree on any
number of things. We’ve always been able to do it respectfully and
I consider him a good friend and a valued colleague on the AC.

>    *)  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.

There’s a lot of room between this and “ARIN should be responsible
for DR to cover all the ills that can be loosely connected to address
policy issues.”

> 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, I’ve stated as much. However, unlike ICANN where turning off the
DNS for a zone really actually hurts, ARIN turning off rDNS is a minor
Inconvenience at most and changing whois is, in some circumstances,
more likely to make the registry less useful than to drive behavioral
changes by those who run routers.

>     *)  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.

Actually, to claim this is the case is to deny simple factual reality, IMHO.

> 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.

David advocated (and I agree with) caution in the exercise of ARIN’s powers
to revoke address space. What he didn’t advocate (which is the reductio
ad absurdum process that you turned that into) was ARIN providing DR
for one and all victims of same and then feeling free to revoke at will.

> 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.

I’m surprised that by your age, you still haven’t learned that despite the
nice clean and convenient resolutions provided by digital, we are actually
still living in an analog world. The community can be cautious about revocation
while not shouldering the additional burden of DR for those who are impacted
by revocations.

Owen