<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mike,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So far, we have seen only bits of policy proposals that hint at the idea of competing private address registries. Without a policy proposal that covers all of the details, we are left to extrapolate the remaining pieces. This extrapolation may or may not be what competing address registry proponents have in mind, but until we see a full policy proposal, we are left with only perceptions of your (and others) motivations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Keith<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike Burns<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:23 PM<br><b>To:</b> John Sweeting<br><b>Cc:</b> arin-ppml@arin.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamental conflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><strong>It really is as easy as rounding up all the support you can muster, have that support join PPML, submit the proposal that you would like see made policy and then have your support show their support through PPML and the next PPM. Is there a reason you do not want to follow that process? It might help gain support if you provided your underlying motivation(s).</strong><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br><strong><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>-John Sweeting</span></strong></span></b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Hi John,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>My interest is in having a market for the buying and selling of IP addresses free from government and psuedo-government restrictions like taxes and justification requirements.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I think this will best serve the interests of a community long held in thrall to the vision of an IPv6 transition that simply has not occurred in anything like the predicted timeframe.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I would prefer that any support I find not be motivated by perceptions of my motivations, just my words and ideas.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I voiced support for the concept of having a informed higher authority make the decision about competing registries requested in the letter which started the thread. I support competing registries because I believe that their competitive forces will move the market towards freedom, and because presumably a competing registry could decide its own, more liberal transfer policy.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>My understanding is that one way to get that accomplished, and I will accede it would be the better way, would be for the participants in policy making in all 5 RIRs come together to forge a policy allowing for competing private registries.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>But I think that is like expecting Network Solutions to have voted for competing DNS registrars. Unlikely to happen due to institutional conflicts of interest. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(I understand that NetSol was not a community run org like the RIRs, but I see a natural institutional conflict between those who dominate a closed market and those who seek to expand it.)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(And yes, this is also a commentary on the tiny number of participants who seem to people the RIR executive positions, and by extension the tiny groups of vocal participants in the RIR-PPML process.)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(And yes, I have lost trust in ARIN staff since the MS/Nortel debacle)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>But nobody seems too sure what that higher authority is, and of course some participants see the community of RIR-PPML participants as the highest authority of all.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I didn't write that letter, nor do I have any relationship with the writer of the letter, to my knowledge I have never met, conversed, or emailed with him.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>As for changing policy in the ARIN region, that is my intent, and I have heard from another poster who is interested in co-sponsoring a proposal designed to create a free market for ip transfers.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>So I will work with him to do just as you say, round up support and see if we can get a proposal that passes muster with the PPML and can be included in the next PPM.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Mike Burns</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>