<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Owen,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV>It is my contention that the definition of waste is often in the eye of
the beholder,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>If we keep needs, only ARIN's definition
matters. They are THE arbiters of need, and thus the corollary,
waste.</STRONG></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>
<DIV>but, if you define waste as addresses which are not assigned to machines
or</DIV>
<DIV>assigned to machines without a purpose considered useful by at least
some</DIV>
<DIV>person and related to the address being used to provide or consume a
service</DIV>
<DIV>over the network, then, it is my argument that the amount of waste
allowed by</DIV>
<DIV>a market with justified need would be less than that allowed by an
unrestricted</DIV>
<DIV>market.</DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>If I concede that, will you concede that
a market with a continued justified needs policy would lead to a less reliable
whois?</STRONG></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>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">We know the needs requirement was not a perfect
way to ensure efficiencies.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">We know that from the number or allocated and not
advertised space, if nothing else.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">No, we do not. Allocated and not advertised DOES
NOT mean underutilized.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">There are many legitimate reasons IP resources may
be unadvertised while still<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">fully utilized (or more accurately, utilized but
not visible in any routing table to which<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">you particularly have access).<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I
am of the opinion that there is a lot of waste in legacy space, and only
slightly less waste in RSA space.<BR>Everyone here can make their own
decision on that using their own experience to guide them.<BR>This is all
space that has been allocated outside functioning market
environments.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>I have no reason to believe that a
market without justified need requirements would</DIV>
<DIV>somehow magically reduce waste vs. a market with the requirement that
recipients</DIV>
<DIV>have justified need for their resources. After all, any recipient with
justified need for</DIV>
<DIV>the resources they are receiving is non-waste almost by definition, where
this</DIV>
<DIV>remains largely undefined for a market with no such
requirement.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>An unrestricted market depends on the price of the address to reduce
waste. However,</DIV>
<DIV>unless you consider that tying addresses up to keep them from benefiting
your</DIV>
<DIV>competitors is not waste (I believe it is waste), there is no reason to
believe that</DIV>
<DIV>such an unrestricted market would not create exactly that type of
transaction.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>If competitors tried to do that, they
would be taking a risk that their investment would be ill-advised,
particularly if they drive Ipv6 adoption.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2 face=Arial>And you are presupposing (a big leap to
me) that other addresses would not come into the market to replace those
purchased by the fictional competitor who is hoarding.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2 face=Arial>They are fungible, after all. You are
asking ARIN to make these kinds of business decisions as to what is a valid
strategy and what isn't. </FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">A market will not be perfect either, but unlike
the prior needs analysis, we seem to be judging the free market by the
exceptions.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Since the misdeeds (which you claim will be
"exceptions") in the market have the<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">potential to overwhelm the market, where no such
risk existed in the needs<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">analysis, I think that is a legitimate
approach.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The stewards of APNIC decided otherwise, and
your assertions, like mine, about the dangers of allowing free individuals
voluntarily engaging in trade, are unsupported.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>The
APNIC community decided that abandoning needs basis might serve their</DIV>
<DIV>community better. The other four RIRs have elected to preserve needs
basis.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>The APNIC community is also the most
active in terms of recent demand, and closest to
exhaust.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>The sponsor of the needs-free transfer
policy was a well respected member of the APNIC community, not a latecomer
like me.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>My statements about the dangers of allowing unrestricted trade are well
documented</DIV>
<DIV>in other markets where they have occurred. Can you point to examples of
completely</DIV>
<DIV>unregulated markets where such misdeeds have not occurred over any
substantial</DIV>
<DIV>period of time?</DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>I wish I could point to more unregulated
markets. I point to the Internet, which has developed largely because it has
been free from government rules.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>It has also been free from unnecessary
psuedo-government rules put in place by existing Internet governance
systems.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2 face=Arial>After all, these Internet governance
systems could have done more to mandate IPv6, but conservative stewardship
left the matter to individual choice.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>I never said no "misdeeds" will occur in
a free market. I claim that these are exceptions, and that you are judging
markets by their exceptions.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>I think free markets have moved the world
forward immensely since the concept was elucidated by Adam Smith, and I point
to the car you drove to work in as one positive result of free
markets.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But your request for examples leads me to
analogies which is a road I am trying to avoid.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">2) Why would any organization with need for
unique IPv4 addresses<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">choose to not have those addresses recorded in
the database which<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">guarantees their value in order to escape
stating their need? (i.e.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">What class of organization with legitimate need
would be hurt by<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">having to demonstrate that need before receiving
addresses?)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">An aggregator buying unroutable bits to aggregate
to a routable size?.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I see no reason this couldn't be done by an
organization with need just as effectively<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">as by some random aggregator intending to resell
the result.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What if his need is to buy snippets of space
in order to aggregate it into sizes acceptable to the network operator
community and then sell them?<BR>How would he describe that need to
ARIN?<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>That isn't a need supported by policy. If he
needs an aggregate acceptable</DIV>
<DIV>to the operator community for his own use, OTOH, I think he could easily
justify</DIV>
<DIV>those multiple purchases to ARIN under current interpretation of
8.3.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>But you would arbitrarily prevent
him from providing that service to others through maintaining ARIN sayso over
whether his business is justified. Even though that service would benefit the
network operator community through aggregation, and the Internet as a whole
via recovery of unroutable space.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I don't see where the reseller provides any benefit to the community over
the</DIV>
<DIV>end organization being the one to do the aggregation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>You don't think that somebody who
specializes in that market would possibly be able to provide the service more
efficiently than an end user?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Somebody who has a different view on the IPv6
transition timeframe and has a longer planning horizon for
IPv4?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Then they come to the market multiple
times.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Each time involves a cost of waiting, an
uncertainty cost of the addresses in the future which some companies may
find unacceptable, supply uncertainty,as well as transactional and
deaggregation costs.<BR>Is good stewardship to result in increased costs for
consumers of ip address space?<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes... The
future of IPv4 is uncertain and will get progressively more uncertain as time
progresses.</DIV>
<DIV>This is the reality of betting your business on continued availability of
IPv4.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Providing greater or longer durations of certainty to some organizations
at the cost of denying it to others</DIV>
<DIV>is contrary to good stewardship.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Who is denying anything to anybody? My
contention is that you are denying two entities from engaging in a mutually
satisfactory voluntary relationship through intervening with needs
verification.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Good stewardship is keeping the cost playing field relatively level for
all players over time.</DIV>
<DIV>At least to the greatest extent possible.</DIV><FONT size=2
face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Doesn't a free market treat participants
as equal? My proposal seeks to put legacy and RSA holders on a level playing
field.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><BR></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">A reseller of vanity addresses, like
100.100.100.100?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I see no reason to promote or create these. They
offer no meaningful benefit to the<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">community at large.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Is it ARIN's
role to decide this? Doesn't the history of the Internet suggest allowing
volunteer private organizations to make these kinds of
decisions?<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>It is the community's role to decide
this. As a member of the community, I have offered</DIV>
<DIV>my opinion. Others may offer theirs. At the end of the day, ARIN policy
should reflect</DIV>
<DIV>the collective judgment of the community.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>There is no history of volunteer private organizations making these
decisions with</DIV>
<DIV>respect to number resources on the internet and in places where number
resources</DIV>
<DIV>have been allowed to be managed in such a way, careful regulation has
been required</DIV>
<DIV>in each case to avoid substantial problems that have occurred in its
absence. It is a</DIV>
<DIV>complexity which I do not think we should take on, give its limited value
to the community</DIV>
<DIV>as a whole.</DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>If the community needs to decide this,
what more open way for it to do this than allowing them to vote with their
dollars? If it is a bad idea, he will go broke.</STRONG></FONT>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">A wholesaler of addresses who caters to those who
need instant availability (needs analysis takes time)?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">My last needs analysis took less than 24 hours.
The average of my last 5 needs analysis is less than 36
hours.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">That's real-time, not resource analyst or my
hours.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Microsoft got turned down recently from APNIC for
a temporary allocation for some technical symposium in
Australia.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>So?</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>Why can't they look to a wholesaler for rapid, and maybe temporary
deployment?<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>In the APNIC region, under their policies, presumably they can.
In the ARIN region, they cannot because policy</DIV>
<DIV>prohibits such wholesalers. What policy does, however, allow, is
"matchmakers" who could serve the same purpose</DIV>
<DIV>without possessing the address registrations in the interim. I believe
the STLS term for them is "Facilitators".</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Given the ability to have facilitators, what need is there for
wholesalers?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Facilitators cannot control supply in the
way a wholesaler can.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>Surely you can understand that transfers will likely increase in
number, and ARIN's needs analyses could take longer?<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>I don't think that transfers
will increase beyond current allocation/assignment request rates (modulo
normal growth)</DIV>
<DIV>unless the market is becoming excessively liquid which would indicate
that we have some level of failure in policy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>So there is a limit to
allowable market liquidity in your eyes?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>But no such wholesaler can exist if you require him to demonstrate
need.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Nor is he needed or useful in my opinion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Unless Microsoft wants to hold that
symposium in North America.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>Think of a Quik-E-Mart for IP addresses. Are you certain there would
never be a call for that kind of convenience?<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>The visual of purchasing a Big-Gulp full of IP addresses at the
local 7-11 is just too much for me to take seriously.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Not 7-11, Apu from the Simpsons will be
doling out the address. I guess that doesn't help with the
seriousness.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>What if there are supply problems on STLS? A wholesaler with inventory
on hand is often a valuable resource in times like that, even though he is
going to make a buck on the deal.<BR><FONT class=Apple-style-span
color=#000000><FONT class=Apple-style-span
color=#144fae><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>How is a wholesaler with
inventory different from a facilitator as defined in STLS in any meaningful
way?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The facilitator can still make a buck on the deal. If there's a supply
problem, it's because there isn't a supply,</DIV>
<DIV>not because policy prevented people from providing supply.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>This is not reasonable. Surely you could
see, especially in the current slim pickings of the STLS, that the market may
have a supply problem?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>If I thought this, and thought I could
profit from being a reliable supplier by holding some inventory, your policy
would prevent me from entering this business artificially, not through any
economic reason.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">A speculator, who could have a positive role in
free markets?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">ROFL -- The concept of speculator in the same
sentence with "positive role" amuses me.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Suggested
reading for when you arise from the floor<BR><A
href="http://mises.org/daily/320">http://mises.org/daily/320</A><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>After
a long winded explanation of how he can cloud the definition of speculation to
mean virtually</DIV>
<DIV>any form of investing, he finally gets to the point of claiming that
there is a benefit to the market if:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span></SPAN>1.<SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span> </SPAN>Prices adjust
quickly</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span></SPAN>-- In the case
of speculators this almost always means "increase"</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span></SPAN>2.<SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span> </SPAN>There is greater
liquidity</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span></SPAN>-- Though he
makes no mention of how, exactly, speculation actually increases
liquidity</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span></SPAN>3.<SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span> </SPAN>The market fluctuations
are minimized</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span></SPAN>-- Which is
interesting to attribute to speculators after attempting to attribute case 1
to them as well.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In my observations of various markets, speculators have had a
destabilizing influence with a general</DIV>
<DIV>tendency to increase prices, often far above and beyond rational
levels.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Yes, the speculators at the end of that process when the bubble bursts
usually get hurt badly, then, we</DIV>
<DIV>the taxpayers get to pay to bail them out, too.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>If you believe all that, then you should
be a speculator. I certainly would never support taxpayer bailouts to
speculators.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">An organization that does not want to undergo an
ARIN analysis for fear it will lead to a review and recovery
procedure?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">An organization which has reason to fear this is
an organization which probably shouldn't<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">be getting additional resources from the
community.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They would be buying them from the rights
holder, not getting them from the community.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>The
resources belong to the community. The current resource holder is holding them
in trust.</DIV>
<DIV>They are not property.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Funny they appear on many asset sale
documents I have seen along with other tangible and intangible
property.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>And I can have the exclusive right to
sell them according to MS/Nortel, even if they weren't allocated to
me.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Walks and quacks like rights
ownership.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">An organization from another
region?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>There is no policy to support
inter-regional transfers currently and your proposed policy</DIV>
<DIV>would not inherently create them.</DIV><FONT size=2
face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>You are correct, but this is still a
reason why somebody would seek to transfer without registering, Chris'
original request.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">You say this as if it is somehow a
benefit.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was asked by Chris why anybody would transfer
addresses and fail to have them registered, and these were just
examples.<BR>I don't think this is a benefit, but I support a global free
market for IP addresses, so they can flow to wherever they are needed most,
as measured by their price.<BR>In this way I feel I am extending the
definition of community wider than the region of
abode.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>I do not support using price as the sole measure of the need for
addresses. There are many cases where I think</DIV>
<DIV>that, for example, that providing services to <insert 501(c)3
organization> is a far better use than insuring that</DIV>
<DIV><insert large monopolistic telco> can make sure that their
competitors feel the pinch of address exhaustion</DIV>
<DIV>well before they do.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Measured by money, <insert large monopolistic telco> is almost
certain to win.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>In this endeavor, I view ARIN as the
large monopolistic entity.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">A buyer of a /24 who thinks an ARIN needs analysis
isn't worth the expense?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Again, not seeing the benefit to the community in
providing this person the opportunity to take<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">that /24 out of the hands of some more deserving
organization with documented need.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You miss my point,
they may have need, but for a small transaction, having to negotiate ARIN
hurdles could be viewed as unworth the effort. Again this is in response to
the request for examples of potential buyers who would not take the steps to
register.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>For a small transaction, the cost of a
needs analysis is also small. As someone with rather</DIV>
<DIV>extensive experience producing needs-basis justifications for submission
to ARIN (and</DIV>
<DIV>some experience with other RIRs), I can say with certainty that the
needs-basis justification</DIV>
<DIV>for a /24 is very simple and does not provide a significant cost to the
equation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Suppose it is some doctor's office that
wants to multihome, do you think they would have the same view of that as a
person with your experience?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Microsoft? They didn't seem to want or need a
needs analysis until ARIN began negotiating with them after the original
asset agreement with Nortel had been negotiated.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">This, also, strikes me as an indication that
removing needs basis would have a negative impact<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">on the overall outcome.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>ARIN ran
in and got the transfer reflected in whois through shenanigans with the
needs justification, in my opinion. If there were no needs requirement, I
think Microsoft would have asked ARIN to make the updates to whois as the
normal course of business, but without knowing how accomodating ARIN would
be on a needs analysis, they pointedly left ARIN agreements out of the first
negotiated asset sale with Nortel.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Your opinion is
noted, but, I don't concur with the characterization you make of the
situation.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I think you state a number of assertions in that paragraph with no
factual basis to back them up.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>I don't make a single assertion in that
paragraph without factual basis of backup. I invite you to read the original
negotiated MS/Nortel asset sale document, and the one that was edited after
ARIN became involved.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Well, I take that back, I did allege
shenanigans, but I did back that up last week with logical conjecture if not
actual fact.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I don't pretend to be able to able to identify all
the types of transactions for which an ARIN needs analysis seems an
unnecessary intrusion into a transaction between two private
entities.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">What you call unnecessary, I call vital to the
overall interests of the community.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It was vital when
there was no other free and voluntary mechanism to ensure efficient use, but
I am trying to show that the needs mechanism is now outdated and poses a
problem for whois.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>Money does not insure efficient
use by any definition of efficiency that I find acceptable.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Measuring efficiency by money is sort of like measuring electrical
consumption of</DIV>
<DIV>a house by measuring the temperature rise in the upstairs bedroom. Sure,
the electrical</DIV>
<DIV>consumption in the house will definitely contribute, but, you won't get
anything near</DIV>
<DIV>an accurate measurement.</DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>My measurement of efficiency is address
utilization. We are near exhaust and there are a billion unrouted
addresses.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>The current system displays obvious
inefficiencies, although overall I think it did its job
well.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">The point is that many prior transfers have taken
place, particularly with legacy space, that have not been reflected in
whois.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Hopefully as these can be identified, the space
can be revoked and reallocated<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">to organizations that comply with policy. The
original legacy holder has some<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">protections. A third party as a result of an
unauthorized transfer should not have<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">any protections in this
regard.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Microsoft was the third party here. Addresses
were transferred to Nortel from their acquisitions, the original legacy
holders here.<BR>By your definitions, since ARIN was not involved, these
transfers were unauthorized.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Yep.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>And yet a bankruptcy judge saw no problems with Microsoft buying them
from Nortel.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I agree that it is unfortunate that the bankruptcy judge did
not see fit to consider the</DIV>
<DIV>community with greater weight.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>I haven't stressed this, but the legal facts as I see them are that
legacy holdings can be transferred without ARIN notice or needs
requirements.<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>As I see it, this remains unclear. Each of the cases so far has
carefully not decided this</DIV>
<DIV>particular point.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>By removing needs requirements for transfers, we bring policy in line
with developing law, and this is sure to reduce future conflict.<BR><FONT
class=Apple-style-span color=#000000><FONT class=Apple-style-span
color=#144fae><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>I would rather preserve
conflict and try to develop the law in a more useful direction.</DIV>
<DIV>I guess you can consider this part of my right to petition the government
for redress of grievances.</DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Fair enough, but you have to accede
the cost to ARIN of that possibility of conflict with the law when it
comes to future legacy transactions.</STRONG></FONT>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">One of the problems relates to the requirement for
a needs analysis.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">No, the problem is the belief that community
resources can be transferred outside<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">of community policy.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>For legacy
addresses, these transfers have occurred in reality, it's time for belief to
catch up.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>As I said, as these blocks which are being used by entities other than
their legitimate holders</DIV>
<DIV>are identified, ARIN should reclaim them and reissue the resources to
organizations within the</DIV>
<DIV>policy process.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>That is reality. It is time for ARIN to start becoming more aggressive
about identifying them</DIV>
<DIV>in my opinion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2 face=Arial>And we're back to FUD over section 12
processes for those seeking to bring addresses to the
market.</FONT><BR></STRONG></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">If a holder of legacy space acquired through an
asset sale approached ARIN to reflect that transfer, ARIN would not update
whois without a needs analysis.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">As it should be.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You are
arrogating needs requirements over whois accuracy by taking that
stance.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>No, I am taking the stance that the better way to ensure whois accuracy
is by identifying</DIV>
<DIV>blocks being hijacked by organizations to which they were not issued and
reclaiming them</DIV>
<DIV>and providing them to members of the community in compliance with
policy.</DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>There is no legal process for reclaiming
legacy space. You would be wasting ARIN's time and treasure in the legacy
area, and increasing FUD for existing holders seeking to
sell.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I don't even think there is an ARIN
process for recovering legacy space, except through voluntary donation from
the holder.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">In addition, the requirement for ARIN to do a
needs analysis and the potential for review and recovery on either the
buyer or seller increases the FUD factor in the market.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Only for those attempting to circumvent policies
constructed by the consensus of the community.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>If I want
to buy and the seller want to sell, and we have reached an agreement on
price, then having to undergo an audit before we can process the sale, or
being subject to one thereafter, is most certainly an added
uncertainty.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>So what. You're trying to trade in community resources that are held in
the trust of the</DIV>
<DIV>community for a particular purpose. The community has a right to audit
your use of them</DIV>
<DIV>and ensure that it is in compliance with the policies of the
community.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The presence of police on the highway adds an element of uncertainty to
my ability</DIV>
<DIV>to drive at any speed I prefer. I don't necessarily see that as a bad
thing, even though</DIV>
<DIV>it was very inconvenient on several occasions in my younger years.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>And the element of uncertainty slows your
progress, correct?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">For a market to function efficiently, Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt need to be assuaged, and this proposal does
that.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I have tremendous fear and uncertainty about the
effects of this proposal. I doubt that it will function as<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">advertised. Indeed, I believe this proposal
increases each of those things from my perspective.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So
you see how FUD works to prevent action.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>More often,
I see how it is used to provoke incorrect or counterproductive action, such as
the PATRIOT</DIV>
<DIV>act.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I copied liberally, almost entirely, from the
APNIC policy to allow needs-free transfers. The rationale which was most
effective in that regions's deliberations may have been the concern that
by imposing the needs requirement, transactions would be more likely to
occur outside the system, leading to a decay in whois
reliability.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">That is the argument Geoff used which appears to
have had sway in that region.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Geoff has repeatedly made that argument in the
ARIN and RIPE regions (and I'm not sure<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">that he has not made it in LACNIC or AfriNIC as
well). So far, it has not been found to be<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">convincing outside of APNIC.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">By structuring my proposal in this way, I am
trying to get people to consider whether the original and laudable needs
requirement should be maintained when keeping it could lead to whois
degradation.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">This question has been asked and answered as part
of the debate around 2008-2, its successor<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">2008-15 (IIRC) and the boards reconstruction of
that into 2009-1. You are welcome to ask the<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">question again, but, I'm not inclined to believe
the answer has changed.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Things have changed since then
in terms of continued failure to transition and the MS/Nortel deal, and
APNIC reaching exhaustion and approving their new transfer
policy.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Uh, APNICs current transfer policy was in place prior to 2009-1. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>This page says February 2010, but even
though it may have been in place, it was only activated as the exhaust phased
in.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><A
href="http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-050"><STRONG>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-050</STRONG></A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Back in 2009, many people were still
thinking/hoping the transition would take off, but now we have years more
evidence to the contrary, which may change some minds.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>If you're talking about their inter-regional</DIV>
<DIV>transfer policy, that's new, but it doesn't really support a removal of
needs basis from the ARIN region.</DIV>
<DIV>If anything, it makes it even more vital.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I don't see how the continued failure to transition differs from the
expectations that were considered at the time we were debating 2009-1.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Finally, I don't really see that the MS/Nortel deal changes anything
other than indicating that we may have been insufficiently specific</DIV>
<DIV>with the restrictions expressed in 2009-1 (NRM 8.3) and might need to
tighten the language so as to place better constraints on staff's action
more</DIV>
<DIV>in line with intended policy.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>As I said, you are more than welcome to ask the question again.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">My argument is that proper stewardship
recognizes the existence of a market which will fulfill the original
stewarship role of ensuring efficient use, and we can direct our
stewardship best to policies which help to ensure whois
veracity.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">My argument is that the market alone is not a good
steward and a regulated market is necessary<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">to ensure the vital interests of the
community.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And I counter that the vital interest in
address-use-efficiencies are better offloaded to the market, and the vital
interest in maintaining whois veracity is
retained.<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV>Yes, your argument that it is better entrusted to the market is precisely
the point where I think we have the strongest disagreement.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>But what about whois? Don't we absolutely
require a believable registry for the integrity of the whole Internet? There
is a connection between needs requirements and whois reliability that drove
the APNIC decision.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>I would like to say that I will busy out
of town this weekend, but this thread in particular has probably bored the
readers to tears and they will be happy at my absence and their relatively
empty inboxes. My plan is to take some of the proferred suggestions and
resubmit a draft proposal on Monday for futher discussion. Have a nice
weekend.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>REgards,</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>MIke</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>