<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1review</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE>P.2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
LI.2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
TABLE.2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9acTable {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009>John,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>
If Marla is acting as an AC on 2009-1 and only requesting other people's
opinions then I</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009>do not think it's</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009> appropriate for her to
inject her own opinion in such a request.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>
The fact that she did add her opinion really changed it to her promoting her POV
- which is</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>OK for
an AC to do (at least I think so) but on that case she is no longer wearing her
AC</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>hat,
and her post is merely yet another in the currently existing discussion.
Particularly</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>when
her opinion is counter to the majority of posts on the topic
already.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>
I would suggest if Marla wants to wear her AC hat that she start a new thread
with</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>a
NEUTRAL post.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>
As for the rest regarding trust,</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009> I will observe that I certainly didn't
state that the</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>Board
has become unelectable as a result of this one action - that's something
you</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>came
up with. I did say that if the Board continued to fight the community over
this</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>and
continue to fight off attempts to strip this out if it does become policy, that
they</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493443222-02042009>will
then be unelectable.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=493443222-02042009>Ted</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> John Sweeting
[mailto:john.sweeting@twcable.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 02, 2009
3:24 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Ted Mittelstaedt; Marla Azinger;
arin-ppml@arin.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro
and con merits of 2009-1review<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Ted, <BR><BR>This specific thread IS about 2009-1. It
is about having an intelligent discussion about the contents of 2009-1 and
providing input back to the Board through the AC using this PPML mailing list
so that the AC can then make a recommendation to the Board. Marla is trying to
reach out to everyone in the community for their opinions on what the AC feels
are the 4 most important issues with 2009-1. If you want to continue to beat
up the Board, or the AC for that matter then it would be more appropriate to
start a new thread. Please let people that would like to voice their opinions
about 2009-1 on this thread do that. I truly respect your right to your
opinions and to your right to share those opinions and would ask that you show
the same respect and courtesy in return. If the community has truly lost faith
in the Board members then I expect it will show in the next election.
Personally I do not think the Board has lost the trust of the community and I
think that most people feel that they have acted in a manner that they felt
necessary. Since we are still in the discussion stage I think it only fair to
see how this plays out and wait for the end result. As for the Board, this is
essentially the same Board that has served us so well over the years and has
helped to make ARIN what it is and for that I am willing to give them the
benefit of the doubt for the time being. I can ask that you do the same but
that, of course, is your decision. In closing I would ask only that you allow
this thread to stay on track for collecting opinions on the actual wording in
2009-1. Thank you<BR><BR>For everyone else out there please take the time to
provide your thoughts and opinions on the 4 items that Marla has requested as
it is critical for the AC to understand the positioning of the community on
this policy. Thank you.<BR><BR><BR>On 4/2/09 5:57 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<<A href="tedm@ipinc.net">tedm@ipinc.net</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
face=Arial>Marla,<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial> The fact of the matter is that this
isn't about the merits of 2009-1 anymore. It is about whether
or<BR>not the Board wants to restore trust of the community and de-polarize
this issue.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial> If 2009-1 is put in place against
opposition, then it will be subject to constant additional<BR>future policy
proposals to strip it out, and it will require further opposition against
the majority to<BR>keep it in the policies, which will just widen the breach
of trust. Eventually it will go or the<BR>Board will go and then it
will go after that - but by then the atmosphere will be so poisoned<BR>that
we will be hamstrung with dealing with this IPv6 transition at a critical
time.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial> There is still time now for the Board
to apologize and atone for it's mistake. Atonement is<BR>simple,
either withdraw it and all proposals associated and wait for a new, fresh
set of proposals<BR>during the next round, or, restore the sunset
clause.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial> Seriously, this really, really, really
isn't about the merits of this proposal anymore. It<BR>is an issue of
trust - the Board broke it, and the cooler heads out here are all sitting
here<BR>scratching our heads as to why the Board simply doesn't acknowledge
they screwed up<BR>and take the extremely simple action, EASILY reversible
by policy later, of just restoring<BR>the sunset
clause.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial>Ted<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR><BR></FONT></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
</FONT><FONT face="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><B>From:</B> <A
href="arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</A> [<A
href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Azinger, Marla<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April
02, 2009 1:41 PM<BR><B>To:</B> <A
href="arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</A><BR><B>Subject:</B>
[arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1
review<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR></FONT></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT></SPAN><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">I've waited for calmer waters to discuss
the merits of this proposal in hopes that others can do the same
and not get lost in the sea of procedural commentary.
Just looking at the merits of 2009-1 here is what I
came up with and I would like to hear what other pro's, con's,
solutions and opinions the rest of the community has. While
I am grateful for those who have already posted their opinions to
ppml I'm hoping to hear from folks that have not yet posted to
ppml on this subject. <BR> <BR><B><I>Sunset Clause
</I></B></SPAN></FONT><B><I><FONT size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">(was taken out of
2009-1)<BR></SPAN></FONT></I><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Pro</SPAN></B><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and
resume original policy.<BR><B>Con</B></SPAN></FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">: A hard date could be totally the wrong
date. <BR><B>Con</B>: Results may show evidence that keeping the
transfer policy as permanent policy is better for the ARIN than
reverting back to original policy. <BR><B>Alternate solution</B>:
It might be better to write in a clause the requires review
and analysis of the state of address space availability every
year. If there proves to be zero difficulty fulfilling IP
requests for a period of one year then revert back to original
policy and deactivate this policy.<BR><B>My opinion</B>: Its
cleaner and easier not to have a sunset clause or anything of its
kind. If in the future we enter into free flowing address
space again, we can always enact the policy process to revert back
to the original transfer policy. Either way its not a show
stopper but going without it seems to me to be the best
way.<BR><BR><BR></SPAN><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><B><I>Implementation Date Now and no wait
time<BR></I></B></SPAN></FONT><B><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Pro</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">:
Immediate implementation would halt the growth of the Black Market
which is currently active and growing.<BR><B>Pro</B>: Immediate
implementation would help preserve WHOIS data. <BR><B>Con</B>: The
free world of addressing as we currently know it comes to an
end. <BR><B>Alternate solution</B>: Wait till the address
availability has reached a choking point.<BR><B>My opinion</B>: It
sucks to see there is no escape from supply and demand. The
former utopian addressing world was great but the fact is when the
quantity of anything becomes limited, people no longer freely
share or give but require some form of monetary return.
We can't escape the fundamentals of supply and demand
and I believe maintaining the integrity of WHOIS as much as
possible is more important than clinging to the past and in that
time frame watching the black market grow and the accuracy of IP
usage and record of authoritative source decline. We already
need to improve in those areas and this isn't a jab to start that
discussion on ppml right now, but it would be best to in the least
take action that stops it from getting any worse while at the same
time ensuring conservation/proper usage.<BR> <BR><BR><B><I>New
Definition </I></B></SPAN><B><I><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">“Organization. An Organization is
one or more legal entities under common control or
ownership.”<BR></SPAN></FONT></I><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Pro</SPAN></B><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">: This will force organizations into
proper management of IP
addresses.<BR><B>Pro</B></SPAN></FONT><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">:
This could cut down on waste from large organizations that are
segmented. <BR><B>Con</B>: Large segmented organizations will have
to face management of address space on a higher level.
Currently one organization can own three or more companies
that up until now have operated separately when it came to address
management. With this additional definition Company A could
have allot of address space that effectively stops Company B from
getting more address space because per the new definition the
addresses would need to be shared among the whole Organization not
individually by Company as in the past. This would force
address management up to the organizational level.<BR><B>Alternate
solution</B>: Grandfather existing organizations.<BR><B>My
opinion</B>: While this may be difficult to swallow for some
organizations I believe its the most accurate and efficient way to
manage address space. It may also serve as an indirect
push towards the adoption of
IPv6.<BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR></SPAN></FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=Arial><B><I>Clarification needed on
what this policy specifically is applied to (v4, v6
both?)<BR></I></B></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>New wording doesnt clarify that this is supposed to be for
IPv4 only. I think it needs to be clear what this policy
will be applied to as it makes sense for IPv4 but not IPv6 since
its needed due to a supply and demand situation.<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR><BR></FONT></SPAN><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><FONT size=4><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><B><I>In Summary:<BR></I></B></SPAN></FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">As I went through this I was surprised to
find that I actually think the changes made are appropriate.
I don't think the sunset clause is a functioning tool.
I think implementation now makes sense as opposed to waiting and
the new definition to "Organizations" makes sense in regards to
address conservation and management.<BR> <BR> <BR>Those
are my 2 cents. I hope to hear from the other community
members that have not yet posted thoughts about the policy text
itself.<BR> <BR>Cheers<BR>Marla
Azinger<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><BR>
<HR align=center width="95%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT face="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">_______________________________________________<BR>PPML<BR>You
are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (<A
href="ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</A>).<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 <A href="info@arin.net">info@arin.net</A> if you experience any
issues.<BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: green; FONT-FAMILY: Webdings">P</SPAN> <FONT
face=Verdana color=green size=2>Go Green! Print this email only when
necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally
responsible.</FONT>
<P></P>
<P> </P>
<P></P>
<P><FONT face=Verdana color=green size=2></FONT></P>
<P class=2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac><FONT face=Verdana color=#008000
size=1></FONT></P>
<P class=2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac></P><PRE>This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>