<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- 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>
</BODY>
</HTML>