<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style></head>
<body>
<body><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word"><br><br>Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone</pre>"arin-ppml-request@arin.net" wrote: </body>
<font size="2"><div class="PlainText">Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to<br>
arin-ppml@arin.net<br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
arin-ppml-request@arin.net<br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
arin-ppml-owner@arin.net<br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress<br>
policy pitched directly to ICANN (McTim)<br>
2. Re: If we would pursue a transfer policy without needs<br>
justification... (John Curran)<br>
3. Re: ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other contacts to act<br>
through a "blacklist") (John Curran)<br>
4. Re: ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other contacts to act<br>
through a "blacklist") (McTim)<br>
5. Re: Analogies (Arturo Servin)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 07:59:06 +0300<br>
From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com><br>
To: Mike Burns <mike@nationwideinc.com><br>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, arin-ppml@arin.net<br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of<br>
interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinopAS=Piknqfh1EO92eB-iusy4gQ@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Mike Burns <mike@nationwideinc.com> wrote:<br>
>> What higher organizational level?<br>
><br>
>> The Number Resource Organization and Address Supporting Organization roles<br>
>> at the IANA are the collective committee of representatives from the 5 RIRs.<br>
>> >Global address policy results from the same policy being passed by all RIRs<br>
>> and then ratified (a formality) at the IANA level. The "higher level<br>
>> organization" is >completely and directly controlled by the RIRs, as it<br>
>> should be.<br>
><br>
>> Owen<br>
><br>
> I think you misconstrue the relationship and have the tail wagging the dog.<br>
> ICANN/IANA is the entity that delegated the roles you describe, the NRO and<br>
> ASO roles, to committees which are run by representatives from the RIRs.<br>
<br>
representatives from the regional communities, not the RIRs<br>
themselves. In Africa, for example, we recently elected a ASO<br>
Councillor who was not previously an active member of the RIR<br>
community, but an active member of the larger Internet<br>
Governance/technical and policy community.<br>
<br>
I would dipute both your and Owen characterisations. The fox is<br>
neither guarding the henhouse, nor is the ASO AC "completely and<br>
directly controlled by the RIRs".<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> "The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (the IANA), as part of the<br>
> administrative functions associated with management of the Internet Protocol<br>
> (IP) address space, is responsible for evaluating applications for approval<br>
> of new Regional Internet Registries. "<br>
><br>
> All I am saying is that although this is not a new "regional" registry, it<br>
> is a registry which could compete with the RIRs, and why not have IANA<br>
<br>
<br>
I think you mean ICANN here.<br>
<br>
<br>
> decide, since the representatives of the RIRs may have a vested interest in<br>
> "regional-only" self-preservation which would affect their votes?<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm</a> says<br>
<br>
"The ASO Address Council is responsible for the organizational roles of:<br>
<br>
1. undertaking a role in the global policy development process as<br>
described in attachment A of this document.<br>
<br>
2. providing recommendations to the Board of ICANN concerning the<br>
recognition of new RIRs, according to agreed requirements and policies<br>
as currently described in document [ICP-2]."<br>
<br>
so the "vested interest" is in following ICP-2, which does proscribe<br>
regionality. However, none of the folk who would like to make money<br>
in IPv4 trading seem to want to set up a new "RIR" (complete with<br>
allocation and assignment authority), so the regionality argument<br>
regarding Conflict of Interest doesn't seem to apply.<br>
<br>
The ICANN by-laws are pretty clear on this issue:<br>
<br>
"ARTICLE VIII: ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION<br>
<br>
Section 1. DESCRIPTION<br>
<br>
1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO) shall advise the Board<br>
with respect to policy issues relating to the operation, assignment,<br>
and management of Internet addresses."<br>
<br>
so while it may ultimately be an ICANN Board decision, it will be the<br>
ASO that "advises" the ICANN BoT.<br>
<br>
BTW, there is an independent review of the ASO in progress:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.nro.net/news/independent-review-of-the-icann-aso">http://www.nro.net/news/independent-review-of-the-icann-aso</a><br>
<br>
the results of which should be interesting.<br>
<br>
As for other fora where this could be discussed (besides ICANN), the<br>
IGF (global and regionals) springs to mind, as does the OECD and even<br>
perhaps the CoE. None of whom would be the "deciders", but could<br>
provide platforms for wider discussion (and capacity building) around<br>
these issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 05:57:58 +0000<br>
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net><br>
To: "frnkblk@iname.com" <frnkblk@iname.com><br>
Cc: "ppml@arin.net" <ppml@arin.net><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] If we would pursue a transfer policy without<br>
needs justification...<br>
Message-ID: <82026FDB-C821-4C2A-9A46-6A5162147F21@arin.net><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
On May 1, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:<br>
<br>
> If the community does ever debate a transfer policy that eliminates need<br>
> justification, there should be some verbiage that the selling organization<br>
> and its successors would not be able to receive more IPv4 space from ARIN's<br>
> free pool unless there were exceptional circumstances. Otherwise an org<br>
> could be set up to justify space and then sell, show need, rinse and repeat.<br>
<br>
A similar provision exists in APNIC's transfer policy which makes selling <br>
organization ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations <br>
or assignments for a period of 12 months after the transfer (or until APNIC <br>
reaches its austerity phase with 1 final allocation allowed per organization<br>
from their final /8 of space) <<a href="http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy">http://www.apnic.net/policy/transfer-policy</a>><br>
<br>
I'm expressing neither support or concern over the provision, but believe <br>
as "running code", it's information that the community should be aware of<br>
in this discussion.<br>
<br>
FYI,<br>
/John<br>
<br>
John Curran<br>
President and CEO<br>
ARIN<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 06:19:46 +0000<br>
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net><br>
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com><br>
Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" <arin-ppml@arin.net><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other<br>
contacts to act through a "blacklist")<br>
Message-ID: <3BEF530A-B50C-400A-893B-CD6497CC3FD9@arin.net><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
On May 1, 2011, at 6:05 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:<br>
<br>
> curran> "Legacy resources that have been abandoned because a company, for<br>
> curran> example, has dissolved don't really pose a problem."<br>
> ...<br>
> <br>
> John Curran knows good and well that there is a problem. He has simply<br>
> been doing his level best to steer himself and his minions well and<br>
> truly clear of taking any responsiblity for fixing it, or even in-<br>
> vestigating it.<br>
<br>
Ron - <br>
<br>
Leo seems to have pulled one sentence from the middle of <br>
my remarks; here's the full statement in context from the <br>
transcript -<br>
<br>
"Legacy resources that have been abandoned because a company, for example, has dissolved don't really pose a problem. Misuse of legacy resources could be problematic, could take more resources than handling other cases. And, again, we need to know is there a prioritization here that the community would apply if we adopt this policy."<br>
<br>
I meant exactly what I said, which is that ARIN doesn't have <br>
difficulties cleaning up resources which are truly abandoned... <br>
it's fairly simple to do so once we receive a report and can <br>
determine the address holder is defunct. I was not speaking of <br>
resources of a defunct organization which are in active use <br>
and likely being misused; those can indeed be problem *which<br>
is precisely as I said in my remarks*<br>
<br>
We're absolutely willing to put more resources on these types <br>
of abuse, but need to understand which targets and what level <br>
of resources the members want us to invest here.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
/John<br>
<br>
John Curran<br>
President and CEO<br>
ARIN<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 10:15:55 +0300<br>
From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com><br>
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net><br>
Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" <arin-ppml@arin.net><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-2 (Was: Forcing POCs and other<br>
contacts to act through a "blacklist")<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinTo1z98TUdpVzU7v+C8M2ghbxEpA@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
Hi John,<br>
<br>
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:19 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:<br>
<br>
<snip><br>
><br>
> ?We're absolutely willing to put more resources on these types<br>
> ?of abuse, but need to understand which targets and what level<br>
> ?of resources the members want us to invest here.<br>
<br>
<br>
I would rather ARIN survey the Members/community on this issue rather<br>
than the "if you could make money flogging your IP space would you<br>
want to" kind of survey.<br>
<br>
In addition, I think that rfg has a rather simplistic view of accuracy<br>
of the DB entries.<br>
<br>
Perhaps John, you can enlighten us as to whois responsible for said<br>
accuracy?. I had thought that it was largely down to holders of<br>
resources to keep information up-to-date, with the caveat that ARIN RS<br>
does have some role to play for those allocations and direct<br>
assignments it maintains.<br>
<br>
What I see happening is that that ARIN is being put in a damned if<br>
they do and damned if they don't position in re: accuracy of legacy<br>
resources, with some folk saying "ARIN is not doing its job regarding<br>
accuracy of legacy entries" and others saying "don't you dare touch<br>
any legacy entries".<br>
<br>
Anyway that's my 2 shillings.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
route indicates how we get there."? Jon Postel<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 09:57:50 -0300<br>
From: Arturo Servin <aservin@lacnic.net><br>
To: arin-ppml <arin-ppml@arin.net><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Analogies<br>
Message-ID: <7CD5F1ED-DB5D-44F2-82F7-4770E6E2D2E1@lacnic.net><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
<br>
LACNIC does not.<br>
<br>
-as<br>
<br>
On 30 Apr 2011, at 02:31, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
<br>
> APNIC, RIPE, AfriNIC, and LACNIC all charge their legacy holders<br>
> annual fees to the best of my knowledge.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
ARIN-PPML@arin.net<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 71, Issue 2<br>
****************************************<br>
</div></font>
</body>
</html>