<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div class="im"><div>On May 2, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Mike Burns wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">>It seems the community is</font><div>>rather divided with some advocating a complete abandonment</div><div>>of the principles of stewardship in favor of a laissez faire</div>
<div>>address economy while others favor preservation of the</div><div>>principles of stewardship and justified need while enabling</div><div>>market incentives to free up space.</div><div>>Owen</div><div> </div>
<div> </div></font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Removing artificial restrictions on the transfer of IP address space is not, as Owen persists in characterizing it, an abandonment of the principles of stewardship.</font></div>
</div></span></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Yes... It is.</div><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Stewardship simply means different things pre- and post-exhaust.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div></div>No, it does not.</div><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite">
<span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Pre-exhaust requires needs analyses to ensure efficient use of address space.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Post-exahust, efficient use is ensured by the same market incentives you claim enables the freeing up of space.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">To wit, price.</font></div></div></span></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div> </div></div></span></blockquote></div>I don't believe that is a dependable system because without the needs basis,</div><div>you open up the potential for a new class of organization... The speculator</div><div>
who wants to come in, use vast financial resources to acquire all addresses</div><div>priced below some threshold he believes to be viable and then wait until</div><div>the market desire for the resource exceeds that price (potentially by a wide</div>
<div>margin). This delays the availability of addresses to a wider set of justified</div><div>need while increasing the price without benefit to the community.</div><div><br></div><div>The only entitiy that gains in this environment is the speculator. Everyone else</div>
<div>loses.</div><div><br></div><div>That is, regardless of what else you may think, in my mind an obvious abandonment</div><div>of the responsibility of stewardship.</div><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite">
<span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I don't believe that there has been an answer to those of us who said that while it is grammatically acceptable to decide that a "single aggregate" relates to the needs justification, it is nonsensical to do that, as all needs analyses result in a single aggregate. You don't have a needs analysis at any time where it is found that a need is outside CIDR boundaries. Need assessment has always rounded up to that boundary.</font></div>
</div></span></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div> </div></div></span></blockquote></div>I agree with you that is the case.</div><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">No, the only way to interpret the language of 8.3 is that the reception of the addresses should occur as a single aggregate, which is clear has not occurred with 8.3.</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">To say the staff or the board acted outside of policy is correct in the MS/Nortel case.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div></div></span></blockquote></div>While it is nonsensical, I have found that the law is often nonsensical in its</div><div>interpretation of plain English. The supreme court has somehow managed</div>
<div>to interpret the plain English of the first amendment to include the ability</div><div>to bankroll a campaign by a corporation as a form of protected free speech.</div><div>To me, this seems completely nonsensical.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, we can't rule out a nonsensical interpretation and we need to write</div><div>language that cannot be nonsensically interpreted.</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>Owen</div></font><div>
<div></div><div class="h5"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Regards,</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial">Mike</font></div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div><div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left-color:rgb(0, 0, 0);border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px"><div>----- Original Message -----</div><div style="background-color:rgb(228, 228, 228);background-repeat:initial initial">
<b>From:</b><span> </span><a title="owen@delong.com" href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">Owen DeLong</a></div><div><b>To:</b><span> </span><a title="rudi.daniel@gmail.com" href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com" target="_blank">Rudolph Daniel</a></div>
<div><b>Cc:</b><span> </span><a title="arin-ppml@arin.net" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a></div><div><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Monday, May 02, 2011 3:44 PM</div><div><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re: [arin-ppml] NRPN 8.2 & 2.3</div>
<div><br></div>At this point, I would agree. However, I would like to wait until I<div>get a chance to discuss the matter with ARIN Counsel and</div><div>further discuss it with staff before I start crafting proposals</div>
<div>to do so.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't feel that staff or the board have acted improperly. I think</div><div>that policy failed to express the community intent well enough</div><div>as to achieve or goals.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I will continue to work on finding a way to bring policy better in</div><div>line with community intent, but, the hard part will be achieving</div><div>consensus on what that intent is. It seems the community is</div>
<div>rather divided with some advocating a complete abandonment</div><div>of the principles of stewardship in favor of a laissez faire</div><div>address economy while others favor preservation of the</div><div>principles of stewardship and justified need while enabling</div>
<div>market incentives to free up space.</div><div><br></div><div>It is most unfortunate that we failed to produce clear policy</div><div>in 2009-1. I hope we can correct it at Philadelphia.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div>
<div><br></div><div><div><div>On Apr 30, 2011, at 6:48 PM, Rudolph Daniel wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">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="border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;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" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>To: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank">jcurran@arin.net</a>><br>
Cc: Public Policy Mailing List <<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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:<span> </span><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 ................<span> </span><a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com" target="_blank">herrin@dirtside.com</a>?<span> </span><a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>To: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
Cc: John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank">jcurran@arin.net</a>>, arin-ppml <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Analogies<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimzAx7_S=<a href="mailto:oaHiEB2epuXmMiBc136w@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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 ................<span> </span><a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com" target="_blank">herrin@dirtside.com</a>?<span> </span><a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>><br>To: "Stephen Sprunk" <<a href="mailto:stephen@sprunk.org" target="_blank">stephen@sprunk.org</a>>, "Owen DeLong"<br>
<<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>><br>Cc:<span> </span><a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">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:<span> </span><a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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<span> </span><a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a><span> </span>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" target="_blank">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>--<span> </span><br><img width="58" height="61"><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>_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">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<span> </span><a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a><span> </span>if you experience any issues.</blockquote>
</div><br></div><div><br></div><hr><div><br></div>_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">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<span> </span><a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a><span> </span>if you experience any issues.</blockquote>
</div></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><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></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">Owen,<div><br></div><div>Would you be in support of an open exchange if there were basic controls in place to lockout speculators? <br>
<div><br>-- <br><p>Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team<br><a href="mailto:jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net" target="_blank">jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net</a> | <a href="http://www.blacklotus.net/" target="_blank">http://www.blacklotus.net</a><br>
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421<br>First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions</p><br>
</div></div>