<HTML><head><META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<STYLE><!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac, li.2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac, div.2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac, table.2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9acTable {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --></STYLE>
<TITLE>Re: [arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1review</TITLE>
</head><BODY>
<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 SIZE="3" WIDTH="100%"> </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 SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></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 COLOR="green" FACE="Verdana" 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><FONT COLOR="green" FACE="Verdana" SIZE="2"> </FONT></P>
<P CLASS="2945f236-3d75-4462-a026-3c432882f9ac"><FONT COLOR="#008000" FACE="Verdana" 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></BODY></HTML>