<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The
road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as well as "limited time
offers"</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>that
were extended.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>How
many times was the "temporary IPv6 fee deferral" at ARIN extended until
they</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>finally decided to quit pretending it was temporary and normalized fees
to make</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>it one
fee for IPv4/IPv6? (effectively making IPv6 free)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The 3
year period is just getting the camels nose under the tent. At the end
of</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>the 3
years the argument will be "nothing really bad happened so why are
you</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>bitching about extending it" and everyone supporting this will
conveniently forget</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>the
promises they implied that they would make sure it dies at the end of
3</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>years,
and push to extend it for another 3 years. Then 6 years from now
the</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>argument will be that we extended it for 3 years and no problems, and the
push</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>will
be to extend it again. Eventually the argument will be, we have been doing
it</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>for so
long, let's make it permanent.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>If
it's not good enough to be permanent, it's not good enough to even try for 3
years.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
didn't say there would never be value in these kinds of efforts. I said
that there</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>is no
value NOW. I would prefer we wait until value is apparent THEN talk
about</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>implementing something like this.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=816305723-29092008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Ted</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Bill Darte
[mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 29, 2008 4:57
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Ted Mittelstaedt; David Williamson; Kevin
Kargel<BR><B>Cc:</B> arin-ppml@arin.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [arin-ppml]
2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>"for a period of 3 years" is also found at that
URL....<BR><BR>It seeks to serve notice (once again) that these would be
extraordinary times...as determined by the BoT...and that such transfers will
cease to be 'legitimate' thereafter. Hopefully this signals folks and
motivates them toward v6. But who knows?<BR><BR>2008-6 provides those
who think something is necessary in transition a mechanism to move in that
direction. It does announce its motivation and what and its consistency
with past tradition....helping others to swallow a bitter pill
perhaps.<BR><BR>To those like yourself who think there is no value in these
efforts, it affords nothing. <BR><BR>Trying to convince 'me' doesn't
afford much either, because the proposal is not 'my' proposal, but one for the
industry to consider.<BR><BR>Bill Darte<BR>ARIN
AC<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Ted Mittelstaedt
[<A href="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">mailto:tedm@ipinc.net</A>]<BR>Sent: Mon
9/29/2008 6:41 PM<BR>To: Bill Darte; 'David Williamson'; 'Kevin Kargel'<BR>Cc:
arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer
Policy for IPv4 Addresses<BR><BR>Bill,<BR><BR>The URL would be
helpful:<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html">http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html</A><BR><BR>The
problem is the line: "transfer of ARIN IPv4 addresses between
two<BR>entities in the ARIN region, without the active involvement of ARIN as
an<BR>intermediary, will be considered legitimate"<BR><BR> Have you ever
stood in line for movie tickets? I'm sure you have.<BR><BR> When
your standing there and there's 50 people in front of you, and<BR>someone
walks up and wants<BR>to "take cuts" in front of the 3rd guy in line, the 3rd
guy in line is not<BR>going to let him unless he<BR>gets paid.<BR><BR>
And everyone else waiting in line behind the 3rd guy ISN'T going to be<BR>paid
by the guy<BR>taking "cuts" in front of the 3rd guy. Naturally they are
going to be a<BR>little hot under the<BR>collar.<BR><BR>This is a
market. You can play all the semantic games you want in the<BR>policy
proposal,<BR>it's still a market.<BR><BR>After the very last IPV4 block is
assigned from ARIN, the next day there may<BR>be someone who<BR>stops paying
their bill, and their block goes back to ARIN. ARIN will
then<BR>reassign it to the next<BR>person who had put in a request for IPv4
numbers.<BR><BR>IPv4 runout is more correctly defined as the day that the
demand for IPv4<BR>exceeds the supply.<BR>But there will still be IPv4 handed
out after that day.<BR><BR>This transfer proposal allows deep pockets to "cut"
in front of that line,<BR>post-runout. Is that<BR>fair to everyone else
who is trying to wait patiently in line for numbering?<BR><BR>Imagine that
movie ticket line if everyone was paying everyone else for a<BR>chance to be
the 3rd<BR>guy in line.<BR><BR>It would resemble your typical line for
something in Italy since the<BR>Italians have no concept of<BR>a queue, any
time that tickets or anything restricted goes on sale there,<BR>there's a mad
rush<BR>and everyone piles on, shoving to get to the
front.<BR><BR><BR>Ted<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Bill Darte
[<A
href="mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu">mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu</A>]<BR>Sent:
Monday, September 29, 2008 3:59 PM<BR>To: Ted Mittelstaedt; David Williamson;
Kevin Kargel<BR>Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6:
Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4<BR>Addresses<BR><BR><BR><BR>I would like to
remind everyone that 2008-6 has as rationale....<BR>Rationale:<BR><BR>In order
for ARIN to fulfill its mission and to facilitate a continuing<BR>supply of
IPv4 address resources to its service community when ARIN<BR>resources are no
longer adequate, and to preserve the integrity of<BR>documentation and ARIN
services for those resources, this policy may be<BR>implemented. Its intent is
to preserve the current tradition of<BR>need-based allocation/assignments for
those still needing IPv4 resources<BR>during a transition period as the
industry adopts IPv6. This policy is not<BR>intended to create a 'market' for
such transfers and does not introduce or<BR>condone the monetization of
address resources or a view of addresses as<BR>property. It does recognize
that organizations making available unused or no<BR>longer needed address
resources may incur certain costs that might be<BR>compensated by those
acquiring the resources. This policy is intended to be<BR>transient and
light-weight and does not encourage a sustained or continuing<BR>role for
IPv4, but rather helps to mitigate a transitional crisis that may<BR>emerge
while the industry adopts IPv6 in accordance with the recommendation<BR>of
ARIN's Board of Trustees.<BR><BR>.....Creating a liberalized transfer policy
is not the same as encouraging<BR>the buying and selling of IP address
resources.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Ted Mittelstaedt<BR>Sent: Mon
9/29/2008 4:54 PM<BR>To: 'David Williamson'; 'Kevin Kargel'<BR>Cc:
arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer
Policy for IPv4<BR>Addresses<BR><BR><BR><BR>David and Bill
Darte,<BR><BR> I agree with Kevin and Michael, I am against paying for
numbering<BR>transfers.<BR>However I will make the observation that I think
David is correct that this<BR>will<BR>happen even if we don't want it to, and
it will be black market. HOWEVER<BR>the point that seems to be missed is
that if it does go black market, that<BR>it WON'T HAPPEN until IPv4 runout
actually occurs.<BR><BR> Now is not the time to implement legalized
transfers based on money<BR>because if we do allow them or put language into
the NPRM at this time<BR>to permit them in the future, we are instantly
creating business<BR>justification<BR>for investment in holding companies that
do nothing other than lie, cheat<BR>and<BR>steal as much IPv4 as they can get
BEFORE runout. Meaning you will see a<BR>flood<BR>of ficticious requests
for IPv4 numbering go into the RIR's pre-runout,<BR>causing<BR>runout to
happen that much faster.<BR><BR> I would prefer to wait until AFTER IPv4
runout, when there is actual<BR>evidence<BR>of black-market IPv4 transfers,
THEN implement legalization. Discuss it all<BR>you want, but DON'T
IMPLEMENT ANYTHING OF THE SORT AT THIS TIME.<BR><BR> This policy is
basically ASSUMING that unauthorized transfers are going to<BR>happen and we
need to regulate them now. While we can suspect that they<BR>will
happen, and have a very STRONG guess that they will happen, suspicions<BR>and
strong guesses are NOT GROUNDS for policy. With the upcoming
POC<BR>cleanup<BR>proposals, we have PROOF that we have stale data in there
due to the<BR>number of Bitnet mail addresses discovered, thus policy is
called for. What<BR>PROOF is there that money for IPv4 transfers at this
time will help<BR>anything?<BR><BR> Has anyone ever bothered SURVEYING
the existing<BR>IPv4 holders to find out what percentage would even CONSIDER
renumbering<BR>should an IPv4 market appear? And at what price
point?<BR><BR> The ONLY USE that liberalized transfer RIGHT NOW are for
people who<BR>are PLANNING on hoarding and going into business as IPv4
brokers. They<BR>are of no use to anyone else when ARIN still has IPv4
to hand out.<BR><BR> We have enough work with making policy for things
that we KNOW ARE<BR>HAPPENING<BR>RIGHT NOW. For example, in the past
some have asserted in this forum that<BR>some of Dean Anderson's IP addresses
are hijacked. Has anything<BR>been done to even investigate this?
And if it was investigated and<BR>discovered<BR>to be true, what mechanism
exists to get them back? Nothing! THERE is<BR>where<BR>the policy
blanks are that need filling in.<BR><BR> We also have assertions that a
number of IPv4 legacy blocks are<BR>abandonded. And<BR>we have 2
proposals (mine one) that are tentative steps to discovering which<BR>one of
those blocks ARE abandonded. We will need more policy and
more<BR>discussion<BR>to work out a mechanism for ARIN to define abandonded
legacy blocks and take<BR>them<BR>back. Yet ANOTHER policy
blank.<BR><BR> I think it would be more fruitful to worry about making
policy for<BR>something<BR>that is a problem right now, than for a problem we
think we might possibly<BR>have<BR>a few years down the road. It might
be that in the process of cleaning up<BR>messes like abandonded IPv4 that we
will find that we have a lot more IPv4<BR>than<BR>anyone
thought.<BR><BR>Ted<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PPML<BR>You
are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>Unsubscribe or manage your
mailing list subscription at:<BR><A
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>Please
contact info@arin.net if you experience any
issues.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>