<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Oct 26, 2023, at 21:01, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 23:51 Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)" dir="auto">Well said.<br>
<br>
I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing <br>
compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with <br>
evolution and entrepreneurship.</blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I find it weird that people still answer every business problem with “IPv6”. If the Internet wasn’t a business nome of us would be here. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">One only need look at legacy allocations (and boundaries) to understand that its always been understood there are coexisting interests that can align. Including the role we all created for brokerage. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">They didn’t just fall out of the sky. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">YMMV,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">-M<</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br><div>Well said. Look, I was one of the most resistant to the idea of address resale in the days leading up to runout. However, today’s reality is substantially different from the reality that existed at that time and I adapted my thinking. </div><div><br></div><div>Brokers provide a valuable service to the community. They spend a considerable amount of effort tracking down underutilized resources and making it possible for those resources to be better utilized. </div><div><br></div><div>Are there areas where their interests may conflict with the broader community? You betcha. </div><div><br></div><div>However, there was a time when the interests of large ISPs included restricting the minimum ARIN allocation or assignment size to /19 (and some of them would have liked to see it even shorter (ISTR some pushing for /16 at one point). On the other hand, the smaller providers and end users wanted to see it move to /24. </div><div><br></div><div>The community has always included members with differing legitimate needs and desires. The job of the AC is to work with the community to find balance among those. </div><div><br></div><div>Today, and at least until we can consider IPv4 an island protocol not relevant to the core internet, brokers are a reality. They have a legitimate role to play and provide an important service to the community. These are words I would never have expected to write 15 years ago. But as I said, reality has changed. </div><div><br></div><div>Would I want brokers solely in charge of ARIN policy? No. </div><div><br></div><div>Nor would I want any one of large ISPs, Cable operators, WISPs, or community networks or any other single ARIN constituency solely in charge. That’s why I’m glad we have a 15-member advisory council that contains representatives from many different ARIN constituencies and a broad range of experience. </div><div><br></div><div>But each of those constituencies is entitled to fair representation and participation and it makes no sense to me to argue that someone is inherently more conflicted merely because they come from a particular constituency. </div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div></body></html>