[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

scott at solarnetone.org scott at solarnetone.org
Fri Sep 3 00:03:23 EDT 2021


Agreed.  The middleman with no infrastructure business model is by 
it's very nature parasitic.


On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, Fernando Frediani wrote:

> Surely people benefiting from IP leasing will keep trying to make it
> 'normal', acceptable and part of day by day as if these middleman were
> facilitating something for the good of the internet while it is the
> opposite.
> This practice serves exclusively to the financial benefit of those who lease
> (but are not building any Internet Infrastructure) and of course to the
> middleman not the lessee.
> How can it be beneficial to lessee that has to pay more they would have to
> spend if those very same resources were recovered by the RIR and
> re-distributed directly to that same organization ?
> It doesn't matter much how the scenario changed in the past and recent
> years. There are principles and fairness to be observed and they should not
> change in order to adjust the interest of these few ones who speculate a
> resource that doesn't belong to them and wasn't justified for that propose.
> It is just easier the RIR to recover them and do the right thing, for harder
> and stressful it can be it is the right thing to be done.
> I don't mean to sound rude to those who disagree with me, but I really hope
> RIRs in general revoke as much as possible addresses clearly being used for
> leasing where the resource holder only speculates them, doesn't build any
> Internet infrastructure and where in many cases don't even exist
> connectivity between the current resource holder and the lessee and
> re-allocate them to those who truly justify. This has nothing to do with
> interfere in the business of that resource holder.
> Often those supporting this misuse of IP resources try to paint a picture
> that those resources are organization's property and the RIR should be
> unable to do anything about that. Not being a irrevocable properly
> organizations own explanations and clarity about how they use it according
> to the what is in the best interest of all those who developed and agreed
> the current rules in place and the organization who has the duty to inspect
> that. Regardless the commercial model of an organization it must adhere to
> the current rules and contract they previously signed, not the other way
> round.
> Also the understanding that a LIR leases IP addresses is quiet wrong. If
> they are build Internet infrastructure, provide connectivity and charge
> administrative fees for the addresses they allocate to that customer there
> is nothing wrong with it.
> I personally can understand the permanent Transfer of resources and that has
> been a more natural and fair movement and why community agreed on that on
> most RIRs, but despite some beautiful picture painted IP leasing brings no
> good to lessee and to the Internet if things can be done in the proper way.
> Regards
> Fernando
> On 02/09/2021 17:39, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <058401d7a013$7797d160$66c77420$@iptrading.com>, 
> "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> We tried the method you've espoused below for thirty years and 
> the result were a huge amount of wasted address space. Once the market 
> was adopted, many of those addresses found a useful place in the routing 
> table.
> Well, it's sort of a Catch-22.  Mike, you're absolutely right that once
> there was a free market, a lot of stuff came off the shelves and started
> to be used productively.  But can any of us say with confidence that once
> there was a free market, a lot of this commodity (IPv4) that was sitting
> on shelves didn't just stay there -because- of the open and free market...
> because the "owners" of those blocks effectively became speculators, just
> waiting arond for the scarcity to become more acute, and for the price to
> go up?
> (I confess that I never in my life took an economics class, but it seems
> to me that the entire field is chock full of head-scratching conundrums
> like this... situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you
> don't.)
> The free pool era is dying, let's put a fork in it as quickly as 
> possible We've seen the corruption engendered by the bait of the 
> free pool in multiple registries now, including our own.
> Just curious Mike... Does this opinion on your part extend also to IPv6?
> Your old-fashioned method of address distribution would get some 
> addresses to those in need, I will concede that. However, so will 
> leasing addresses, with that demonstration of need being the lease 
> payment. Will  you concede that those who pay to lease addresses need 
> them?
> Even if nobody else does, I certainly will.  But of course that's not the
> only issue.
> The current Cloud Innovation v. AFRINIC thing is in some ways confusing as
> hell because it has brought to a head -multiple- long-standing issues that
> have then gotten all tangled up with one another, making it difficult for
> anybody to tease apart the various separate issues.
> One of these is what might be called "equity", i.e. the social desire to
> help Africa, a continent and a people who have been on the receiving end
> of so much exploitation and malevolent evil, over the centuries, at the
> hands of others.
> Another issue is the right and proper role of RIRs.
> Last but not leas (and perhaps the most troubling and most difficult to
> crack open in a way that does not merely reveal our individual biases) is
> the question of the proper role of what I will just call "speculators"
> within any free market.
> Contrary to what some might say, I think that when it comes to IPv4 addresse
> s
> at least, it most certainly -is- possible to distinguish "speculators" from
> actual and legitimate end users and/or legitimate brokers & middlemen such
> as yourself.  As I understand it, the current system requires people to
> document their equipment purchases.  No equipment purchases?  You're almost
> certainly just a speculator.
> So then the question becomes two-fold:  (1) Do we want speculators in this
> marketplace? and (2) Is there any actually feasible way to keep them out
> of the "free" market even if the collective "we" firmly decided that we
> wanted to do so?
> I personally don't have answers to any of these questions.  I would only
> offer up the observation that I am aware of at least a few speculators at
> this moment in time, and it would be an understatement for me to say that
> their actions seem to me to be both glaringly untoward and also unhelpful.
> But if you ask me IN GENERAL whether "speculators" are a necessary and even
> useful component of a free market, I cannot say they are not.  And it seems
> I may not be alone in leaving open this possibility:
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/09/the-theranos-implosion-a
> nd-robert-shiller-on-short-selling-and-complete-markets/
> Regards,
> rfg
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list