[arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
Mike Burns
mike at iptrading.com
Mon Nov 2 15:39:33 EST 2020
Hi Jacob,
Thanks for you input, I will address two points.
There is no evidence of waiting list fraud that has reached this list except for the one noted case.
We are considering the grandfathering of existing list members who should not be besmirched as potentially fraudulent without evidence.
So arguments related to fraud prevention in this policy proposal are not relevant unless you expect these grandfathered participants to be engaging in fraud.
There was never a guaranty of waiting list addresses but there was a “guaranty” that ARIN would process things according to the rules in place and let the chips fall where they may in terms of availability This is a change of the rules in midstream, the argument that there was never a guaranty of receipt is not the same as the argument that these members should not rely on existing rules and procedures.
The arguments about the size limits of those coming onto the list today are a separate issue from this policy.
Regards,
Mike
From: Jacob Slater <jacob at rezero.org>
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 3:20 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
All,
(Seth Mattinen)
I also find statements of "fairness" made in the policy to be in
conflict with itself; it purports to be a "... fair, impartial, and
technically sound" draft policy, however, later stating that it was
proposed only because of a belief that "... some organizations were
treated unfairly." Whether or not ARIN-2019-16 specifically was fair or
unfair should not be the basis of new policy since in ARIN-2019-16 the
ARIN staff assessment (under legal comments) specifically stated that
"The new AC proposal will help reduce fraudulent applications, such as
those that were being made under the pre–suspension policy ...". It is
my opinion that ARIN-2020-2 seeks to undermine this whereas ARIN-2019-16
sought to protect the community.
Agreed.
(Mike Burns)
These people got on the list and behaved. A third
party defrauded the list and these people are punished as a result.
I feel their good behavior should not be punished, and the simple expedient
of grandfathering this limited population seems fair to me.
Discussions about the size of the pool and prior policy change
implementations miss the mark. This is a simple question of fairness.
Nobody's ox is being gored here. Nobody has more claim to these addresses
than these companies in my opinion.
A limited population that includes those holding between a /18 and a /19, given that 2020-2 limits max holdings to /18 and 2019-16 allows entities with less than a /20 to remain.
I believe that prohibiting organizations with holdings over a /20 from participating in the waiting list is more "fair" than opening it up to this limited subset of organizations. I would further argue that limiting requests to smaller organizations is a critical part of discouraging the fraudulent activity that originally caused this issue. If we are going to cut it off somewhere, I don't see a compelling reason to expand it past the standard that has already been applied.
These members have
been punished already for somebody else's fraud in the long period of
waiting time they have endured.
Organizations on the waiting list are not guaranteed space. They have existing IPv4 space; their punishment is limited to their inability to adapt, no different than any other organization post-IPv4 exhaustion. The era of large IPv4 allocations and holdings (aggregate or otherwise) based solely on what one can reasonably justify just isn't feasible anymore. If that means cutting a few organizations off from addresses they had no guarantee of receiving, I'm not opposed.
I am opposed to the policy as written.
Regards,
Jacob Slater
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 7:03 PM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:
Hello,
I support the policy. These people got on the list and behaved. A third
party defrauded the list and these people are punished as a result.
I feel their good behavior should not be punished, and the simple expedient
of grandfathering this limited population seems fair to me.
Discussions about the size of the pool and prior policy change
implementations miss the mark. This is a simple question of fairness.
Nobody's ox is being gored here. Nobody has more claim to these addresses
than these companies in my opinion.
I agree with the poster who noted those members excluded due to the
implementation of a policy change which was explicitly designed to favor
small holders over large holders. This restricting access to the waiting
list to small holders only was a mistake in my opinion, but at least this
policy restores fair treatment to some.
The unusual cause of the Waiting list termination and the policy change
should be considered in the context of this policy, IMO. These members have
been punished already for somebody else's fraud in the long period of
waiting time they have endured.
I don't find any issue with the dissemination of this information and the
request for support from others, either. This isn't some closed club, and
the motivations of the posters shouldn't be subject to the implications
present on the list, like the accusation of incentives for posts. Bad form.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> > On Behalf Of John Santos
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 12:38 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Oppose Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2
I thought we went through all this when the policy change was adopted. The
issues at the time, as best I understood them, were requests that exceeded
the new limit and requests from organizations that already have large
allocations or assignments. The options discussed, for both issues, was
whether to retain the existing requests, to allow the organizations to
reduce their request to the new maximum (or lower) while retaining their
place in line, or to drop requesters who exceeded the maximum current
holdings or who were making a large request completely. (If they met the
new policy, they could file a new request and go to the end of the line.)
I didn't pay much attention because my company's current size (a legacy
class C) is sufficient, and some day, hopefully in this millennium, one or
both of our ISPs will offer IPv6. (They both have been claiming to have it
in testing for years, but no announced availability dates, last time I
checked.)
And mostly, the whole thing was academic because the free pool was
essentially empty and there seemed to be little prospect of any returns that
would refill it, so no one on the wait list, unless they were seeking an
initial /24, had any real chance of getting anything, and even they would
probably have to wait a while.
IIRC, the adopted policy was to offer orgs on the wait list who's request
was too large the chance to drop their request size, and remove anyone whose
current holdings were too large, sort of a middle course.
The kid in front of Oliver wants an entire pot of porridge, but there's
barely enough to give Oliver a second scoop, let alone another bowl. I
think this discussion and proposal are a major waste of time and effort and
I oppose.
On 11/2/2020 8:50 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML
> <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> >> wrote:
>
> I find it hard to understand how you can believe that this is "special
> benefits".
>
>
> Grandfathering is a common technique that addresses inequities changes
create.
> Governments do it and business does it. To some extent, the could be
> called "special benefits". However, the context of that is different,
> some feel the benefits create an inequity rather than resolve one.
>
> Organizations went through the approved process to get on the wait
list to
> *possibly* be assigned an address block. The policy on allocations was
> changed, however the organizations did everything by the book per
previous
> policy. The organization is now told that they have to go through the
> process again and wait longer. This has nothing to do with potential
space
> allocation. I am all for limiting the allocation amount in the future.
> However, to penalize an organization that has followed the process to
this
> point is unfair. This also is no guarantee that these organizations
will
> receive an allocation. More likely, they'll continue to wait.
>
> This draft policy is simply to not penalize organizations that went
through
> the proper process of what was approved policy at the time. A similar
> scenario would be arresting someone who has broken a law, prior to the
> offense becoming law.
>
>
> The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that
> grandfathering addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list
and getting nothing?
> There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as far as
> I can tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself
> requires any special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting
> minutes correctly and Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with
much at all.
>
>
>
> I continue to support this policy, not because I agree that larger
requests
> should be granted, but because the organizations had followed the
approved
> process and policies.
>
>
> I'm not entirely certain where I sit on this. So far I haven't seen
> strong arguments one way or the other.
>
> Fair enough. Thank you.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> -M<
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
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 <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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20201102/daa79d6b/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list