It would seem clear to me that at the very least, NRPN 8.2 and 8.3 requires rephrasing. Is that also the view of the ppml?<div><br></div><div>rd<br><div><br></div><div><br><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
>> for such resources, as a single aggregate", not that a single<br>
>> aggregate be transferred.<br>
><br>
> ... I do not believe that Stephen's interpretation below matches the<br>
> meaning or the intent of the policy as I understand it. ...<br>
<br>
I don't think it does either, for the record. However, this points out<br>
how bad wording has left us in a situation where we're not sure /what/<br>
the policy text means--much less whether we agree with it.<br>
<br>
> I do agree that your interpretation would be a syntactically and<br>
> grammatically valid construction, but, I believe it is contextually<br>
> nonsensical and not the intended meaning of the words.<br>
><br>
> If anyone has a suggestion for making the actual intent more clear, I<br>
> am open to suggestions and would support making an editorial<br>
> correction for clarity.<br>
<br>
If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to<br>
allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent. As<br>
it stands, though, I don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent<br>
well enough to try.<br>
<br>
S<br>
<br>
--<br>
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein<br>
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the<br>
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/ab367759/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/ab367759/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: smime.p7s<br>
Type: application/pkcs7-signature<br>
Size: 3646 bytes<br>
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/ab367759/attachment-0001.bin" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/ab367759/attachment-0001.bin</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:28:39 -0400<br>
From: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
To: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
Cc: Public Policy Mailing List <<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Call for a study & survey to obtain necessary<br>
information for policy development<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=0i9isaCTnsTQC9NO=<a href="mailto:PX2RAcSt1A@mail.gmail.com">PX2RAcSt1A@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> ? contains a specific call for ARIN to charter a study including<br>
> ? a survey in order to obtain additional information to assist in<br>
> ? policy development.<br>
><br>
> ? I've not seen any discussion of this suggestion; would it be<br>
> ? possible to get feedback from the otherwise shy participants<br>
> ? on the PPML mailing list?<br>
><br>
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:<br>
>> what we should do is<br>
>> charter ARIN to conduct a comprehensive study and:<br>
>><br>
>> - Conduct a survey of the public at large, PPML users, full members,<br>
>> resource holders, and the AC to gain a clear understanding of<br>
>> sentiment for or against an open market.<br>
>> - Determine how many companies actually have IPv6 migration plans and<br>
>> ascertain road blocks, either legitimate or financial, that are<br>
>> preventing migration.<br>
>> - Would resource holders support a model that allowed ARIN to take a<br>
>> small commission on resource sales and then discontinue the practice<br>
>> of charging an annual fee to its members who are not buying and<br>
>> selling resources.<br>
<br>
These seem like they could be determined by survey.<br>
<br>
<br>
>> - In the survey, ask IPv4 resource holders to anonymously disclose<br>
>> their true utilization rates and determine if companies are hoarding<br>
>> resources either in hopes of future resale or to cover an arbitrary<br>
>> future need.<br>
>> - Determine the amount of participants that would come forward if told<br>
>> they could resell their space on the open market and ultimately<br>
>> determine how much unneeded space is being locked away in loosely<br>
>> justified allocations.<br>
>> - Determine if resource holders would be encouraged to tighten up<br>
>> internal policies and free up more space if there were a fair market<br>
>> value assigned to their space.<br>
<br>
These strike me as very difficult to determine by anything approaching<br>
a statistically valid survey. I would want to see a detailed<br>
methodology proposed before agreeing either that money should be spent<br>
conducting the survey or that the results would have merit to<br>
contribute to the policy debate.<br>
<br>
<br>
>> - Determine the economic impact. Would resource holders be better off<br>
>> selling their resources to more affluent companies who would be able<br>
>> to put the space to better use? Might there be a host of struggling<br>
>> small businesses who would like to put their /17 - /21 on the balance<br>
>> sheet? Are there companies that would purchase IPv4 space at a premium<br>
>> if allowed to do so?<br>
<br>
This would require a cost analysis of a great many factors, only some<br>
of which have been touched on in the listed survey. Given the abject<br>
lack of use of cost analysis in the Internet industry, it would<br>
require at least three independent cost analyses and considerable<br>
subsequent debate on and validation of the methodologies...<br>
<br>
Start here: <a href="http://www.sceaonline.net/" target="_blank">http://www.sceaonline.net/</a><br>
<br>
Disclaimer: my father is a crotchety old cost analyst so I get a<br>
regular earful about this stuff.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a>? <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<a href="http://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank">http://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:39:08 -0400<br>
From: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
To: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
Cc: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>>, arin-ppml <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Analogies<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimzAx7_S=<a href="mailto:oaHiEB2epuXmMiBc136w@mail.gmail.com">oaHiEB2epuXmMiBc136w@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I will point out that ARIN is the only registry that did not start<br>
> charging their legacy holders shortly after coming into existence.<br>
><br>
> APNIC, RIPE, AfriNIC, and LACNIC all charge their legacy holders<br>
> annual fees to the best of my knowledge.<br>
><br>
> I do not know whether a contract was required in any or all cases,<br>
> but, the fee portion of the equation is unique to ARIN to the best<br>
> of my knowledge.<br>
<br>
Hi Owen,<br>
<br>
I will suggest that an attempt by ARIN to charge $100/year under a<br>
contract simplified to, "We agree to keep your whois data and RDNS<br>
delegations intact as is for one year increments until either of us<br>
choose to cancel this contract" would meet with at most mild<br>
resistance from the legacy registrants. It would also, IMHO, provide<br>
an excellent way to weed out the abandoned registrations.<br>
<br>
This hasn't been done in part because we, in this forum, have insisted<br>
that legacy registrants should not be invited into the fold under such<br>
terms.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a>? <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<a href="http://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank">http://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:43:29 -0400<br>
From: "Mike Burns" <<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>><br>
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <<a href="mailto:stephen@sprunk.org">stephen@sprunk.org</a>>, "Owen DeLong"<br>
<<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP<br>
addressTransfers<br>
Message-ID: <7B6110E30D2E40CDA7E10BCB85E290B7@video><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
>If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent. As it stands, though, I >don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent well enough to try.<br>
<br>
>S<br>
<br>
Steve,<br>
<br>
Here is why I call BS on the claim that these transfers comply with policy:<br>
<br>
"Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies."<br>
<br>
That is the text. The comma between resources and "as a single aggregate" can be read to cause the "as a single aggregate" clause to apply to either the verb phrase "be received" or the verb phrase "can demonstrate."<br>
<br>
But how would anybody demonstrate a need for multiple netblocks anyway?<br>
Isn't the need ALWAYS determined as a single aggregate?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: Stephen Sprunk<br>
To: Owen DeLong<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 8:27 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN / Microsoft press release regarding IP addressTransfers<br>
<br>
<br>
On 16-Apr-11 02:19, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
<br>
On Apr 15, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:<br>
<br>
On 15-Apr-11 19:00, Matthew Kaufman wrote:<br>
<br>
The adopted policies (if they are using the "relatively new policy" as alluded to in the release) require the transfer of *a single aggregate*.<br>
<br>
<br>
Not quite. NRPM 8.3 only requires the receiver "demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate", not that a single aggregate be transferred.<br>
<br>
... I do not believe that Stephen's interpretation below matches the meaning or the intent of the policy as I understand it. ...<br>
<br>
I don't think it does either, for the record. However, this points out how bad wording has left us in a situation where we're not sure what the policy text means--much less whether we agree with it.<br>
<br>
<br>
I do agree that your interpretation would be a syntactically and grammatically valid construction, but, I believe it is contextually nonsensical and not the intended meaning of the words.<br>
<br>
<br>
If anyone has a suggestion for making the actual intent more clear, I am open to suggestions and would support making an editorial correction for clarity.<br>
<br>
If you can provide examples of transfers you both do and don't wish to allow, I'll be happy to come up with wording to express your intent. As it stands, though, I don't understand your (or anyone else's) intent well enough to try.<br>
<br>
S<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein<br>
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the<br>
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto: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" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/2d387170/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110430/2d387170/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 176<br>
******************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><img src="http://api.ning.com/files/60Dc*7fMSnOD5inYWvnElhieb2y*e2O798iHVa48vgYOJUmz33g1MSmWAGQs0M2C7g4LXqAu0KvJ0c99k3kSouZfig33AnNo/emaillogo.jpg" height="61" width="58"><br>
<div>Rudi Daniel<div><i><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774" target="_blank">danielcharles consulting</a><br></i><b><span style="font-size:large"><font color="#006600"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774" target="_blank">1-784 498 8277</a></font></span></b></div>
<div><font color="#006600"><span style="font-size:large"><b><br></b></span></font><div><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></div></div></div><br>
</div></div></div>