Discussion:
[arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, can you please help?
(too old to reply)
David Farmer
2009-04-03 23:24:03 UTC
Permalink
>
Seth Mattinen
2009-04-03 23:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:

* IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
* Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where X is
reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year 3000.

Then I'll take another look.

~Seth
Jeremy H.Griffith
2009-04-03 23:57:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <***@rollernet.us>
wrote:

>Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>
>* IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>* Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where X is
>reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year 3000.

+1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:

* Eliminate that absurd definition of an organization.

But even then, I'd still OPPOSE it for creating a market,
when I saw hardly any support for 2008-6 in that respect
either, just lots of noise from the one or two who did
support making lots of money at everyone's expense. And...

"The Advisory Council will review the draft policy within 5
business days of the end of the discussion period and make a
recommendation to the Board of Trustees."

I really hope that recommendation takes full account of the
nonsupport by the community of this entire policy hijacking.

Is there a petition process for recall of Trustees for cause?
And do the hypothetical "minutes" yet to be released identify
those voting for 2009-1 by name? Just wondering. ;-)

--JHG <***@omsys.com>
John Curran
2009-04-04 03:19:23 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 3, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> Is there a petition process for recall of Trustees for cause?

The appropriate petition process is defined here:
<https://www.arin.net/about_us/boardguidelines.html#removal>

/John
John Curran
Interim President & CEO
ARIN
Lee Howard
2009-04-04 15:23:47 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message ----
> From: Jeremy H.Griffith <***@omsys.com>
> To: ARIN PPML <***@arin.net>
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2009 7:57:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, can you please help?
>
> And do the hypothetical "minutes" yet to be released identify
> those voting for 2009-1 by name? Just wondering. ;-)

Yes, Board meeting minutes identify who was present at the meeting, and you'll
see notations like "The motion carried unanimously with no objections." or
"The motion carried, via roll call, with 4 in favor and 1 abstention (Lee Howard)."

You can see minutes for all Board meetings at https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/index.html
Exception: minutes are not posted until they have been reviewed per
the procedure at https://www.arin.net/about_us/boardguidelines.html#approval

Lee,
Secretary
Owen DeLong
2009-04-04 18:04:58 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <***@rollernet.us>
> wrote:
>
>> Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>>
>> * IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>> * Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where
>> X is
>> reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year
>> 3000.
>
> +1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:
>
While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
I think that 2010 would be far too early. IANA runout will probably
occur
somewhere in 2010-2011. I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful. Would you
accept a 12/31/2013 date?

Thanks for your comments.

Owen
Leo Bicknell
2009-04-04 21:17:16 UTC
Permalink
In a message written on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:04:58AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
> I think that 2010 would be far too early. IANA runout will probably
> occur
> somewhere in 2010-2011. I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
> this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful. Would you
> accept a 12/31/2013 date?

I'm thinking outloud, so I'm not sure I'd support this myself, but
what about making the run-out date "3 years after IANA has handed
out the last /8"?

That way we don't have to guess at when we're out of space now with a
fixed date.

--
Leo Bicknell - ***@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Scott Leibrand
2009-04-04 21:45:55 UTC
Permalink
That seems like a good way to restore the original sunset date, which
would've been 3 years from IANA exhaustion if the Board hadn't found
it necessary to implement 2008-6 beforehand.

-Scott

On Apr 4, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Leo Bicknell <***@ufp.org> wrote:

> In a message written on Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:04:58AM -0700, Owen
> DeLong wrote:
>> While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
>> I think that 2010 would be far too early. IANA runout will probably
>> occur
>> somewhere in 2010-2011. I think that we will need at least 2-3
>> years of
>> this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful. Would
>> you
>> accept a 12/31/2013 date?
>
> I'm thinking outloud, so I'm not sure I'd support this myself, but
> what about making the run-out date "3 years after IANA has handed
> out the last /8"?
>
> That way we don't have to guess at when we're out of space now with a
> fixed date.
>
> --
> Leo Bicknell - ***@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Jeremy H.Griffith
2009-04-04 21:30:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:04:58 -0700, Owen DeLong <***@delong.com> wrote:

>
>On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <***@rollernet.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>>>
>>> * IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>>> * Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where
>>> X is
>>> reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year
>>> 3000.
>>
>> +1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:
>>
>While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
>I think that 2010 would be far too early. IANA runout will probably
>occur
>somewhere in 2010-2011. I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
>this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful. Would you
>accept a 12/31/2013 date?

I think sooner is better. One major benefit of the sunset clause
is that it puts a limit on speculation. If someone "acquires" many
blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know
that their inventory will shortly become unsalable. That should
put a damper on price gouging. It also protects ARIN against any
later lawsuits by people who had such inventory when it became of
no value. If there were no sunset, they could claim that a reversal
of the policy was a "taking", and effectively keep it in place
forever by threatening to bankrupt ARIN if it changed. I don't
want the community held hostage that way. So the more we can put
an upfront limit on the duration of this policy, the better off
we are.

That said, how about setting it to *begin* at ARIN runout, and
*end* one year later? That gives people a buffer, while making
clear that the real answer lies elsewhere (IPv6), and discouraging
speculators from entering a "market" that won't be there long.

>Thanks for your comments.

Thanks for yours!

--JHG <***@omsys.com>
Seth Mattinen
2009-04-04 21:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>
> I think sooner is better. One major benefit of the sunset clause
> is that it puts a limit on speculation. If someone "acquires" many
> blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know
> that their inventory will shortly become unsalable. That should
> put a damper on price gouging. It also protects ARIN against any
> later lawsuits by people who had such inventory when it became of
> no value. If there were no sunset, they could claim that a reversal
> of the policy was a "taking", and effectively keep it in place
> forever by threatening to bankrupt ARIN if it changed. I don't
> want the community held hostage that way. So the more we can put
> an upfront limit on the duration of this policy, the better off
> we are.

Same. I'd like to see a limit of a year.


> That said, how about setting it to *begin* at ARIN runout, and
> *end* one year later? That gives people a buffer, while making
> clear that the real answer lies elsewhere (IPv6), and discouraging
> speculators from entering a "market" that won't be there long.
>

I like that, as long as "begins at runout" is explicit in such a way
that there's no room to argue about it when it does take effect.

~Seth
Milton L Mueller
2009-04-06 04:12:13 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
>
> I think sooner is better. One major benefit of the sunset clause
> is that it puts a limit on speculation. If someone "acquires" many
> blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know

There is an obvious logic problem here.

Under all the transfer proposals that have made it into ARIN's pdp, ARIN has to assess and establish the "need" of the recipient before any blocks can be transferred. That in itself catches speculation.

Don't think that will work? Hmm, the critics have proven too much. Assume ARIN and all the other RIRs can be duped into handing out IPv4 addresses to organizations that don't really need them, "using whatever ploy works." Well, then, bad actors don't need a transfer policy, they can just apply for addresses now and hoard them.

When addresses are scarce, hoarding is bad. Can we agree on that? Especially when it can serve as a barrier to entry.

In that case, we need a transfer policy even more, because hoarding by people who don't need addresses is by definition worse than speculating in addresses, which at least moves them to people who need them enough to be willing to pay for them.

Or is Mr. Griffith assuming that needs-based allocation will work perfectly when we don't have a transfer policy and suddenly break down when we do? Is this anything more than an expression of his hostility to a transfer policy?

Can we stop confusing the debate over a sunset clause with an opinion poll on whether you like transfer markets or not?

Let's face facts: the date of a sunset is inherently arbitrary. Arbitrariness in a situation already characterized by massive and potentially crippling uncertainty is bad, really bad. We won't know whether the policy sunsets at a date before we even widely use it and lack enough evidence to make a decision, or whether it comes in the middle of a smashing success, or it comes two years after some disastrous failure.

What we do know is that the moment the clock runs out we have to have this same stupid debate over again, regardless of its relevance.

You don't need a sunset. If the policy causes known problems, modify it or repeal it, with the burden of proof falling on those who claim there is a problem. (Contrary to Griffith's completely unfounded and legally uninformed speculations, transfer recipients who sign an RSA will have no basis for a lawsuit claiming takings.)

If it doesn't cause known problems, leave it in place.
Jeremy H.Griffith
2009-04-06 08:48:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:12:13 -0400, Milton L Mueller <***@syr.edu> wrote:

>[I said:]
>> I think sooner is better. One major benefit of the sunset clause
>> is that it puts a limit on speculation. If someone "acquires" many
>> blocks for resale, using whatever ploy works, I want them to know
>
>There is an obvious logic problem here.

Yes, there is. But it isn't mine. ;-)

>Under all the transfer proposals that have made it into ARIN's
>pdp, ARIN has to assess and establish the "need" of the recipient
>before any blocks can be transferred. That in itself catches
>speculation.

No, it doesn't. All is does is qualify recipients who want to
use the space. It does nothing to prevent others from acquiring
inventory to sell to those people by purchasing shaky companies
that happen to have some. There are lots of those now, and a
canny investor can buy them cheap, thereby becoming the "owner"
of their RTU, then sell off the resource at a handsome profit.
Please don't tell me this possibility has not occurred to you. ;-)

>Don't think that will work? Hmm, the critics have proven too much.
>Assume ARIN and all the other RIRs can be duped into handing out
>IPv4 addresses to organizations that don't really need them,
>"using whatever ploy works." Well, then, bad actors don't need a
>transfer policy, they can just apply for addresses now and hoard them.

I don't assume any such thing. They won't be *getting* the blocks
from ARIN, because ARIN **won't have any**. Doh. And they won't
be getting them from ARIN ahead of time, because they can't justify
them to ARIN. So where do *you* think they will come from?

>When addresses are scarce, hoarding is bad. Can we agree on that?
>Especially when it can serve as a barrier to entry.

Of course.

>In that case, we need a transfer policy even more, because hoarding
>by people who don't need addresses is by definition worse than
>speculating in addresses, which at least moves them to people who
>need them enough to be willing to pay for them.

Again, the assumption is that the rich are more worthy than the
poor. What if a nonprofit health research center needs some?
Absent a transfer policy, we might have something like ARIN
posting a list of people waiting for addresses, that those with
extra ("extra" being defined more narrowly as we go along) may
want to support by returning a block earmarked for a specific
worthy cause. That's just off the top of my head; my point is
that you assume that having money is the prime consideration
for allocation, and I don't.

>Or is Mr. Griffith assuming that needs-based allocation will
>work perfectly when we don't have a transfer policy and suddenly
>break down when we do? Is this anything more than an expression
>of his hostility to a transfer policy?

Is this laughable line of argument any more than a ploy for
libertarian capitalism at any cost? ;-)

Actually, I *do* think a transfer policy will skew the allocation
that is currently based on needs, and has been since the start,
in a negative way. The immediate effect is that it would make
a company that was justified for its block under current rules,
but felt it could spare some of it for the good of the community,
*unable* to donate it back, because the stockholders could claim
it should have been sold instead. I consider that disincentive
to compassion and generosity a bad idea.

>Can we stop confusing the debate over a sunset clause with an
>opinion poll on whether you like transfer markets or not?

I don't believe that's confusing it. It is just raising a point
you find difficult to deal with. Sorry, you do *not* get to
frame this debate. <g>

>Let's face facts: the date of a sunset is inherently arbitrary.
>Arbitrariness in a situation already characterized by massive
>and potentially crippling uncertainty is bad, really bad. We
>won't know whether the policy sunsets at a date before we even
>widely use it and lack enough evidence to make a decision, or
>whether it comes in the middle of a smashing success, or it
>comes two years after some disastrous failure.

That's exactly why I favor a short-term limit to try out this
radically new (for ARIN) policy that Milton Friedman would have
loved. Eliminate the uncertainty; it's just for a year, folks.
Then as that time gets closer, we'll have experience on which to
base a decision about renewing it, or not.

We re-elect US Representatives every two years. Would it be
better to put them in office permanently, like judges, and recall
them if things got bad? Of course not. We have scheduled reviews,
called "elections". This is not a difficult concept, eh?

>What we do know is that the moment the clock runs out we have
>to have this same stupid debate over again, regardless of its
>relevance.

Not if one of us has learned from experience, we don't.

>You don't need a sunset. If the policy causes known problems,
>modify it or repeal it, with the burden of proof falling on
>those who claim there is a problem.

And there you have it. You want the burden of proof to fall
on those who disagree with you. Simple. And that reversal
of burden of proof is exactly why the community, and the AC,
put the sunset into 2008-6 in the first place.

>(Contrary to Griffith's completely unfounded and legally
>uninformed speculations, transfer recipients who sign an
>RSA will have no basis for a lawsuit claiming takings.)

No, they won't. But the guy who bought Failing Electronics,
Inc., to get its resources for resale sure will. Ask *your*
legal department. ;-)

>If it doesn't cause known problems, leave it in place.

Since we don't have the experience yet to know the problems,
we need to have a short-term trial to determine what they are.

HTH!

--JHG <***@omsys.com>
Stephen Sprunk
2009-04-06 17:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:12:13 -0400, Milton L Mueller <***@syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> Under all the transfer proposals that have made it into ARIN's pdp, ARIN has to assess and establish the "need" of the recipient before any blocks can be transferred. That in itself catches speculation.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't. All is does is qualify recipients who want to use the space. It does nothing to prevent others from acquiring inventory to sell to those people by purchasing shaky companies that happen to have some. There are lots of those now, and a canny investor can buy them cheap, thereby becoming the "owner" of their RTU, then sell off the resource at a handsome profit. Please don't tell me this possibility has not occurred to you. ;-)
>

That scenario is already possible today using M&A transfers, except that
today the buyer _doesn't_ have to justify their "need" and it costs a
lot more to have lawyers create the necessary shell company, sell it,
etc. If you consider this a serious risk, you should be proposing that
M&A transfers be repealed -- it's not a problem specific to paid transfers.

>> Don't think that will work? Hmm, the critics have proven too much.
>> Assume ARIN and all the other RIRs can be duped into handing out
>> IPv4 addresses to organizations that don't really need them,
>> "using whatever ploy works." Well, then, bad actors don't need a
>> transfer policy, they can just apply for addresses now and hoard them.
>>
>
> I don't assume any such thing. They won't be *getting* the blocks
> from ARIN, because ARIN **won't have any**. Doh. And they won't
> be getting them from ARIN ahead of time, because they can't justify
> them to ARIN. So where do *you* think they will come from?
>

He said "now", and ARIN does have addresses to give out today and for at
least a couple more years.

>> In that case, we need a transfer policy even more, because hoarding
>> by people who don't need addresses is by definition worse than
>> speculating in addresses, which at least moves them to people who
>> need them enough to be willing to pay for them.
>>
>
> Again, the assumption is that the rich are more worthy than the poor.

No, the assumption above is that it's better that _someone_ get the
addresses than _nobody_, which is quite different.

> What if a nonprofit health research center needs some? Absent a transfer policy, we might have something like ARIN posting a list of people waiting for addresses, that those with extra ("extra" being defined more narrowly as we go along) may want to support by returning a block earmarked for a specific worthy cause.

Corporations make charitable donations all the time. The proposed
transfer policy does not specify that one side must pay the other; it
just says that the grantor is allowed to designate the grantee. Having
a market value for those addresses might also provide them tax benefits
for making such a donation, if they wish.

> That's just off the top of my head; my point is that you assume that having money is the prime consideration for allocation, and I don't.
>

It's the best mechanism we have available in a capitalist society.
ARIN's done the communist thing for the last 10 years, and that's bought
us rapidly approaching resource exhaustion -- just like it did in
Russia, China, Cuba, etc. Capitalism may not be ideal, but it's the
least-bad system for managing scarce resources that humanity has yet
discovered (see also: democracy).

>> Or is Mr. Griffith assuming that needs-based allocation will
>> work perfectly when we don't have a transfer policy and suddenly
>> break down when we do? Is this anything more than an expression
>> of his hostility to a transfer policy?
>>
>
> Is this laughable line of argument any more than a ploy for libertarian capitalism at any cost? ;-)
>
> Actually, I *do* think a transfer policy will skew the allocation that is currently based on needs, and has been since the start, in a negative way. The immediate effect is that it would make a company that was justified for its block under current rules, but felt it could spare some of it for the good of the community, *unable* to donate it back, because the stockholders could claim it should have been sold instead. I consider that disincentive to compassion and generosity a bad idea.
>

Corporations donate money and other assets all the time. The right to
use a particular set of numbers is just another asset, to be potentially
donated like any other.

>> Let's face facts: the date of a sunset is inherently arbitrary. Arbitrariness in a situation already characterized by massive and potentially crippling uncertainty is bad, really bad. We won't know whether the policy sunsets at a date before we even widely use it and lack enough evidence to make a decision, or whether it comes in the middle of a smashing success, or it comes two years after some disastrous failure.
>>
>
> That's exactly why I favor a short-term limit to try out this radically new (for ARIN) policy that Milton Friedman would have loved. Eliminate the uncertainty; it's just for a year, folks. Then as that time gets closer, we'll have experience on which to base a decision about renewing it, or not.
>

Given the time and effort involved in an ARIN policy cycle, and the need
for organizations to budget a year or more ahead of time, a single year
"experiment" just isn't workable. I thought even three years was on the
short side...

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Ted Mittelstaedt
2009-04-06 18:55:23 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:43 AM
> To: Jeremy H.Griffith
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
> can you please help?
>

>
> It's the best mechanism we have available in a capitalist society.
> ARIN's done the communist thing for the last 10 years, and
> that's bought
> us rapidly approaching resource exhaustion -- just like it did in
> Russia, China, Cuba, etc. Capitalism may not be ideal, but it's the
> least-bad system for managing scarce resources that humanity has yet
> discovered (see also: democracy).
>

Stephen,

The IPv4 "scarcity" is fake, it doesn't exist in reality - it is something
that was created when they decided to use 32-bit integers for IP numbers
and stuff both the network number and host number into the same number.

Somebody thought they were being clever with this little experimental
toy network they were playing with and whoops - it got away from them.

Basically your Paleocon analogy is false, it's like saying that a capitalist
market exists in drivers license numbers or social security numbers and
since
we aren't charging money for SS numbers, we are going to run out of them.
It's like arguing for air pollution so that we can develop a market
in selling oxygen to people.

The closest "scarcity" analogy to the IPv4 situation would be the
DeBeers control of the world's fine diamond supply.
DeBeers deliberately sets up a scarcity in diamonds to manipulate
the price, then calls the diamond market a capitalist investment
market, when in reality it's a communist market - the only real
scarcity there is in diamonds is in the flawless blue white
investment grade - the DeBeers vaults are stuffed full of the
less-than-flawless stuff they miser out for use in wedding rings, etc.

BAD network design - such as the address translator - are a result
of this artifically created scarcity.

IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to IPv6 all
this capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite supply
of integers.


Ted
Joe Maimon
2009-04-06 19:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
> IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to IPv6 all
> this capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
> nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite supply
> of integers.
>

How do you propose to force everyone to move to ipv6?

By denying them ipv4?

You really think thats going to work? When ARIN says there is no more
ipv4, everyone is going to meekly accept that?
Ted Mittelstaedt
2009-04-06 19:33:30 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:***@chl.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:04 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'Jeremy H.Griffith'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
> can you please help?
>
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> >
> > IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to
> IPv6 all this
> > capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
> > nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite
> > supply of integers.
> >
>
> How do you propose to force everyone to move to ipv6?
>
> By denying them ipv4?
>
> You really think thats going to work? When ARIN says there is
> no more ipv4, everyone is going to meekly accept that?
>

Joe, you have to get realistic.

Where are most of the assigned IPv4 numbers currently tied up?

North America, specifically the USA

Where's the most potential for further expansion of the Internet?

Everywhere ELSE than the USA.

We have a problem here in the US. We develop things first, then
when we outgrow them we sit around arguing over the best way to
deny some people access to them, so that we don't have to spend the
money expanding them.

This is most obvious in transportation. We have a growing population,
every year there are more cars on the road - thus to keep pace all
roads need to be periodically widened. Yet, go into ANY community
with congestion and propose widening any road and you will get a
perfect storm of opposition. People will passionately argue for
increased mass transit and busses and bicycling when in reality
they are thinking to themselves "if we put in more busses then
maybe everybody ELSE will get out of their cars and ride the bus
and leave the roads to ME" The problem of course is every last man
in the room is thinking exactly the same thing.

This IPv4 argument is self-destructive. When IPv4 is out, the idea that
the rest of the world is going to come to our doors and pay us
lots of money for our IPv4 is pure fiction. The rest of the world
right now is sitting around waiting for the USA to get off its
ASS and start booting networks in the butt to get IPv6 deployed.
And we are making a poor display of acting like a responsible
adult.

ARIN and our community should be making EVERY EFFORT to figure out
ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST TO LOSE IF
WE DON'T.

You want the US to become an island of IPv4 in the sea of IPv6
in the rest of the worlds Internet, just go right ahead with this
foolishness. Sure, make it easy to keep truckin' with IPv4 post
runout. Make it super easy. Who cares if a few poor people get
tossed off the Internet or become permanent second-class citizens
behind a translator somewhere, when it lets the major ISPs wring
another few years out of their IPv4 networks. Who cares if the rest
of the world rings the US with IPv4<->IPv6 proxies that oh, by the way,
make nice black boxes that they can use to filter us out.

The wars of the future world are going to be in ideas. If the US
wants to isolate itself then in another half-century our Democratic
ideals along with our Constitution will be slid into the history books
under "ideas in government that self-imploded" and the prevaling
ideology of the world will be planned economies.

Ted
Joe Maimon
2009-04-06 19:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
<snipped lots of good points well reasoned and argued>
>
> ARIN and our community should be making EVERY EFFORT to figure out
> ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST TO LOSE IF
> WE DON'T.
>

My point was simply that we cannot FORCE anyone to be happy with IPv6
and cease their demands for IPv4.

They will do what they decide they want to do.

We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and logical course
of action.

We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in their
pursuit for IPv4.

We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but that may
simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.

> You want the US to become an island of IPv4 in the sea of IPv6
> in the rest of the worlds Internet, just go right ahead with this
> foolishness. Sure, make it easy to keep truckin' with IPv4 post
> runout. Make it super easy. Who cares if a few poor people get
> tossed off the Internet or become permanent second-class citizens
> behind a translator somewhere, when it lets the major ISPs wring
> another few years out of their IPv4 networks. Who cares if the rest
> of the world rings the US with IPv4<->IPv6 proxies that oh, by the way,
> make nice black boxes that they can use to filter us out.
>

Wouldnt all this provide the FORCE to IPv6 you are looking for?

I believe that we cannot afford to be an obstacle to peoples demands in
this arena.

> Ted
>
>
>
Ted Mittelstaedt
2009-04-06 20:38:19 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:***@chl.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:49 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'Jeremy H.Griffith'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
> can you please help?
>
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >
> <snipped lots of good points well reasoned and argued>
> >
> > ARIN and our community should be making EVERY EFFORT to figure out
> > ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST
> TO LOSE IF
> > WE DON'T.
> >
>
> My point was simply that we cannot FORCE anyone to be happy
> with IPv6 and cease their demands for IPv4.
>
> They will do what they decide they want to do.
>

I may desperately want to paint myself purple and run down the
street naked singing the Free Software Song, but the cost (in
either jail time of physchological evalution time) may be higher
than what I would be willing to pay:

http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,2132593,00.htm

> We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and
> logical course of action.
>
> We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in
> their pursuit for IPv4.
>
> We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but
> that may simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.
>

The question is, how much incentive?

Suppose we make it unpleasant, so a business that wants more IPv4
has to go buy a smaller business that's failing, for example, to
get around the restriction. Well, that's going to be weighed against
the cost to convert to IPv6 and use proxies.

It is likely going to be cheaper to proxy no matter what. It
really is only in instances where the org needs IPv4 and it's
completely unavailable that they would resort to buying a few
legislators and using government regulation to force the issue.
But, in that case, if IPv4 is really unavailable, then what
does that accomplish?

One of the pro-transfer market arguments has been that a transfer
market allows moves to take place in a controlled manner rather
than forcing companies to engage in kludges.

However, if companies DON'T use kludges to increase IPv4 then
what incentive do they have EVER to convert to IPv6?

> > You want the US to become an island of IPv4 in the sea of
> IPv6 in the
> > rest of the worlds Internet, just go right ahead with this
> > foolishness. Sure, make it easy to keep truckin' with IPv4 post
> > runout. Make it super easy. Who cares if a few poor people get
> > tossed off the Internet or become permanent second-class citizens
> > behind a translator somewhere, when it lets the major ISPs wring
> > another few years out of their IPv4 networks. Who cares if
> the rest
> > of the world rings the US with IPv4<->IPv6 proxies that oh, by the
> > way, make nice black boxes that they can use to filter us out.
> >
>
> Wouldnt all this provide the FORCE to IPv6 you are looking for?
>

US citizens by and large trust "their betters" to make the right
decisions FOR them on things they don't understand. They trust their
car mechanic to tell them what is wrong with their car, they trust
their doctor to tell them what is wrong with them, they trust their
financial advisor at AIG to safeguard their 401K retirement funds
(which is why there's a lynch mob after AIG right now) and they
trust us geeks of the Internet to do the right thing with IP addressing.

And the right thing is a small amount of short term pain right now
to get on to IPv6 to avoid a lot more pain long term. If we take the
easy way out and don't do this, I think they will be pretty mad at us
later on.

Ted
Joe Maimon
2009-04-06 21:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
>>> ways to FORCE people OUT of IPv4 because WE HAVE THE MOST
>>>
>> TO LOSE IF
>>
>>> WE DON'T.
>>>
>>>
>> My point was simply that we cannot FORCE anyone to be happy
>> with IPv6 and cease their demands for IPv4.
>>
>> They will do what they decide they want to do.
>>
>>
>
> I may desperately want to paint myself purple and run down the
> street naked singing the Free Software Song, but the cost (in
> either jail time of physchological evalution time) may be higher
> than what I would be willing to pay:
>
> http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,2132593,00.htm
>

Yes, IP address hijackers land up in jail all the time. Especially the
ones who blatantly disrupt others businesses.

>
>> We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and
>> logical course of action.
>>
>> We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in
>> their pursuit for IPv4.
>>
>> We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but
>> that may simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.
>>
>>
>
> The question is, how much incentive?
>

Any avoidable is too much. There are organizations waiting for the excuse.

I could do it right now. Simply grab a bunch of /8's from IANA reserved
or legacy allocations that arent advertised and set up shop.

Get enough patrons and before you know it, ISP's will route ARIN
registrations and JOE registrations with equal credibility.

ARIN registrations come with no guarantee of usability and neither do
JOE's, so whats the difference?

> Suppose we make it unpleasant, so a business that wants more IPv4
> has to go buy a smaller business that's failing, for example, to
> get around the restriction. Well, that's going to be weighed against
> the cost to convert to IPv6 and use proxies.
>
Leaving aside the details of the current policy approved method of
transferring registry acknowledged IP addresses which is likely a lot
easier than you think, thats not their only option.

They can just participate in black market with either exists or is near
certain to emerge. Or outright hijacking (same thing different
perspective). Bringing them into direct confrontation with ARIN and
other registries.

Confrontations have losers. You are implicitly gambling that it wont
ever be ARIN.

> they
> trust us geeks of the Internet to do the right thing with IP addressing.
>

It only appears that way because things seem to be working. If and when
that changes, they will be trusting their talking heads, who may very
well be saying that us geeks have done a horrible job and should be the
ones being lynched.

Even were they to be geeks, what makes you think that its going to be
Geeks you agree with?
> And the right thing is a small amount of short term pain right now
> to get on to IPv6 to avoid a lot more pain long term. If we take the
> easy way out and don't do this, I think they will be pretty mad at us
> later on.
>

Even geeks dont agree on that. I may or may not be a geek, but I
certainly dont.

I believe it a false dichotomy.

The choice I see is between large amounts of long term pain or small to
medium amounts of medium to long term pain.

The optomists who have trumpeted the timely arrival and conversion to
ipv6 are few and far between these days. It would be a pleasant surprise
were that vision to come to fruition, but I am not holding my breath.

> Ted
>
>
>
Ted Mittelstaedt
2009-04-06 21:44:55 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Maimon [mailto:***@chl.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:10 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'Jeremy H.Griffith'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
> can you please help?
>
>
>
>
> Yes, IP address hijackers land up in jail all the time.
> Especially the ones who blatantly disrupt others businesses.
>

An address hijack is an offence against the proper user of the
block, not against ARIN. ARIN has no power to file charges, the
hijackee does. Just because most of them are too ignorant/lazy/
misinformed to get the FBI involved and press charges or file a
lawsuit against the offender doesn't mean it's OK.

People steal millions of bucks by stealing $20 a time from
hundreds of thousands of victims - just because our current
generation of D.A.s are too stupid to file charges doesn't
mean that eventually a younger and Internet-savvy group won't
start doing it.

They didn't use to prosecute polluters when they caught 'em.
Times change.

> >
> >> We can try to persuade, coax, or be the most tempting and logical
> >> course of action.
> >>
> >> We have no mechanism to force anyone to cease and desist in their
> >> pursuit for IPv4.
> >>
> >> We can try to make it unpleasant to to so in our sandbox, but that
> >> may simply create incentive to get us kicked out of said sandbox.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The question is, how much incentive?
> >
>
> Any avoidable is too much. There are organizations waiting
> for the excuse.
>
> I could do it right now. Simply grab a bunch of /8's from
> IANA reserved or legacy allocations that arent advertised and
> set up shop.
>

Which is why I and others proposed 2008-7. Are you for it or
against it? The reason you probably could "get away" with it
right now is because ARIN has no power to identify that your
even doing it - thus the need for 2008-7.

Lots of homeless people nowadays are squatting in abandoned
homes that are bank foreclosures. Because there's such a surplus
of these properties, they aren't being thrown out. What they
are doing is illegal as all get out, but there's little police
enforcement:

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/03/city-foreclosures-open-space-squatters

and there won't be until the housing market heats up and these
homes have value again.

Until IPv4 runout, don't expect to see much effort on enforcement
actions against IPv4 squatters.

> Get enough patrons and before you know it, ISP's will route
> ARIN registrations and JOE registrations with equal credibility.
>
> ARIN registrations come with no guarantee of usability and
> neither do JOE's, so whats the difference?
>

When ARIN executes 2008-7 there will be some guarantee of
verifiability.

> > Suppose we make it unpleasant, so a business that wants
> more IPv4 has
> > to go buy a smaller business that's failing, for example, to get
> > around the restriction. Well, that's going to be weighed
> against the
> > cost to convert to IPv6 and use proxies.
> >
> Leaving aside the details of the current policy approved
> method of transferring registry acknowledged IP addresses
> which is likely a lot easier than you think, thats not their
> only option.
>
> They can just participate in black market with either exists
> or is near certain to emerge. Or outright hijacking (same
> thing different perspective). Bringing them into direct
> confrontation with ARIN and other registries.
>
> Confrontations have losers. You are implicitly gambling that
> it wont ever be ARIN.
>

Correct. Because if it was ARIN then we still win.

Say for the sake of argument that some deep-pocket forces the
issue and strips ARIN of it's authority to regulate IPv4. I
think that the result would be pretty much all legitimate ISP's
would just abandon public intercourse in IPv4 all the faster
since they would all regard the IPv4 address space as damaged.

Also, such authority would ONLY exist in a given nation. US
laws don't apply to Canada, thus a lawsuit in the US that stripped
ARIN would not be recognized in Canada. For an ISP in the US
that has a network that is both in Canada and the US, they will
as a practical matter still have to follow what Canada is
doing.

It would take action by US appealing to the UN to make anything
serious happen on a regulatory front, and by then, we would
have figured out and executed a defensive strategy with ARIN.
Not to mention that it's almost certain China would block it,
as they are going full speed into IPv6.

Basically, any attempt to disrupt ARIN over the IPv4 issue
just makes IPv6 come faster.

> > they
> > trust us geeks of the Internet to do the right thing with
> IP addressing.
> >
>
> It only appears that way because things seem to be working.
> If and when that changes, they will be trusting their talking
> heads, who may very well be saying that us geeks have done a
> horrible job and should be the ones being lynched.
>
> Even were they to be geeks, what makes you think that its
> going to be Geeks you agree with?

Because, any attempt to disrupt ARIN over the IPv4 issue
is just going to make IPv6 come faster.

If transfer proponents could really and truly exist without
ARIN they would not be spending effort trying to get ARIN to
bless a transfer scheme to begin with. The reason they are
is that there's some smart people who see that if they can
get ARIN to bless what they want to do, they will have the
opportunity to make a big pile of money. But, they know that
their fortunes are dependent on ARIN.

> > And the right thing is a small amount of short term pain
> right now to
> > get on to IPv6 to avoid a lot more pain long term. If we take the
> > easy way out and don't do this, I think they will be pretty
> mad at us
> > later on.
> >
>
> Even geeks dont agree on that. I may or may not be a geek,
> but I certainly dont.
>

If your subscribed to this list you're a geek.

> I believe it a false dichotomy.
>
> The choice I see is between large amounts of long term pain
> or small to medium amounts of medium to long term pain.
>
> The optomists who have trumpeted the timely arrival and conversion to
> ipv6 are few and far between these days. It would be a
> pleasant surprise were that vision to come to fruition, but I
> am not holding my breath.
>

Catch-22

Not enough people are using IPv6 because people are arguing that it's not
ready, and it's not ready because not enough people are using IPv6.

There's only one way to break a catch-22 and that's by force.

Ted
Joe Maimon
2009-04-07 00:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
> An address hijack is an offence against the proper user of the
> block, not against ARIN. ARIN has no power to file charges, the
> hijackee does.

What would you do as Business X if Business Y starts BGP advertising an
IP prefix that you have received an registration from ARIN for?

You would appeal to the ISP's of Business Y and potentially the courts
as a civil suit. You might try to appeal to the LEO's by calling it some
kind of hacking.

Why would the ISP's choose to assist you rather than their customer?

Under what statute does the use of a range of integers become
potentially criminal behavior?

As far as I know there is no law on the books that defines "proper usage
of the block" and I wouldnt want any to exist either.

Joe
Kevin Kargel
2009-04-06 20:51:42 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Joe Maimon
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:04 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1 can you please
> help?
>
>
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> >
> > IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to IPv6 all
> > this capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
> > nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite
> supply
> > of integers.
> >
>
> How do you propose to force everyone to move to ipv6?

We don't need to force anyone to do anything. They can either move to IPv6
which will work or stay with IPv4 which will work less and less as time goes
on. This is their choice.
>
> By denying them ipv4?
>
> You really think thats going to work? When ARIN says there is no more
> ipv4, everyone is going to meekly accept that?
>
Joe Maimon
2009-04-06 21:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Kevin Kargel wrote:
> We don't need to force anyone to do anything. They can either move to IPv6
> which will work or stay with IPv4 which will work less and less as time goes
> on. This is their choice.
>

Even those willing to inflict that kind of pain on the population they
serve, this is still a false dichotomy.

IPv6 currently adds no benefit to the network.

IPv4 will work just fine so long as above is true.

IPv4 is STILL AVAILABLE after free pool runout, just NOT FROM ARIN.
Chris Grundemann
2009-04-06 22:46:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:55, Ted Mittelstaedt <***@ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:43 AM
>> To: Jeremy H.Griffith
>> Cc: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
>> can you please help?
>>
>
>>
>> It's the best mechanism we have available in a capitalist society.
>> ARIN's done the communist thing for the last 10 years, and
>> that's bought
>> us rapidly approaching resource exhaustion -- just like it did in
>> Russia, China, Cuba, etc.  Capitalism may not be ideal, but it's the
>> least-bad system for managing scarce resources that humanity has yet
>> discovered (see also: democracy).
>>
>
> Stephen,
>
> The IPv4 "scarcity" is fake, it doesn't exist in reality - it is something
> that was created when they decided to use 32-bit integers for IP numbers
> and stuff both the network number and host number into the same number.
>
> Somebody thought they were being clever with this little experimental
> toy network they were playing with and whoops - it got away from them.
>
> Basically your Paleocon analogy is false, it's like saying that a capitalist
> market exists in drivers license numbers or social security numbers and
> since
> we aren't charging money for SS numbers, we are going to run out of them.
> It's like arguing for air pollution so that we can develop a market
> in selling oxygen to people.
>
> The closest "scarcity" analogy to the IPv4 situation would be the
> DeBeers control of the world's fine diamond supply.
> DeBeers deliberately sets up a scarcity in diamonds to manipulate
> the price, then calls the diamond market a capitalist investment
> market, when in reality it's a communist market - the only real
> scarcity there is in diamonds is in the flawless blue white
> investment grade - the DeBeers vaults are stuffed full of the
> less-than-flawless stuff they miser out for use in wedding rings, etc.
>
> BAD network design - such as the address translator - are a result
> of this artifically created scarcity.
>
> IPv6 rectifies this and once the world switches over to IPv6 all
> this capitalist/communist claptrap will be seen by everyone for the
> nonsense that it is - there is no market in an effectively infinite supply
> of integers.

Unfortunately IPv6 is _not_ an effectively infinite supply as
currently proposed/implemented.
http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
~Chris

>
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

--
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
Milton L Mueller
2009-04-07 04:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Jeremy:
Like a few others, you are dead set against any market transfer policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and please, no need for the smileys)

Your principled opposition to the involvement of monetary exchanges in address allocations is clear. Why pretend, then, that this debate is about a sunset date?

> That's exactly why I favor a short-term limit to try out this
> radically new (for ARIN) policy that Milton Friedman would have
> loved. Eliminate the uncertainty; it's just for a year, folks.
> Then as that time gets closer, we'll have experience on which to
> base a decision about renewing it, or not.

Such a short date would magnify the incentive to speculate and hoard. If you don't know whether the opportunity is even going to exist a year down the road, you'd better act quickly and with the shortest-term approach and hoard while you can.

> >(Contrary to Griffith's completely unfounded and legally
> >uninformed speculations, transfer recipients who sign an
> >RSA will have no basis for a lawsuit claiming takings.)
>
> No, they won't. But the guy who bought Failing Electronics,
> Inc., to get its resources for resale sure will. Ask *your*
> legal department. ;-)

By your logic this guy will also sue ARIN when the sunset date expires, won't he?

And even if he and others don't sue or lose, won't they go to the black/gray market when a poorly timed sunset pulls the rug out from under him?

I have to conclude that those who propose a sunset date, especially short ones, are simply people who would like to sabotage a transfer policy that they hate but can't stop.

> No, it doesn't. All is does is qualify recipients who want to
> use the space. It does nothing to prevent others from acquiring
> inventory to sell to those people by purchasing shaky companies
> that happen to have some. There are lots of those now, and a
> canny investor can buy them cheap, thereby becoming the "owner"
> of their RTU, then sell off the resource at a handsome profit.
> Please don't tell me this possibility has not occurred to you. ;-)

Your position is that IPv4 address space is so valuable that a transfer market will trigger a M&A wave as speculators will spend unlimited sums on failing companies, or companies of any sort, to get tradable blocks.

But wait: you don't need a transfer market for this to happen, do you? You can already acquire blocks via acquisitions now.

So if I understand your position, it is that it is ok for incumbent ISPs to hoard IPv4 address space via acquisitions, but not OK for "speculators" to acquire addresses in the same way and transfer them (at a profit) to people who really need them. Well, it wouldn't be the first time that anti-liberals starved people in order to save them from the depredations of the market.
Tom Vest
2009-04-07 09:16:00 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:36 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Jeremy:
> Like a few others, you are dead set against any market transfer
> policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and please, no need for
> the smileys)

You first Milton.

Having reviewed the last 30 years of your career, from your very
principled writings on political strategy for various anarcho-
capitalist/proto-libertarian movement zines in the 1970s, to your
principled defense of the AT&T monopoly but aggressive advocacy for
maximum privatization and competition for everything else that you
ever wrote about (spectrum in the 1980s, telecom in the 1990s, root
DNS and the tyranny of "industry self-regulation" earlier this decade,
etc., etc.), primarily for beacons of neutral scholarship like the
Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, it's clear that
you are dead set against anything and everything *other* than "pure"
market mechanisms guided solely by subjective value (i.e., "whatever
the market will bear," regardless of circumstances) in every context.
Right? Never mind whether situations vary, never mind whether the
maximalist position might make more sense in some contexts but less in
others -- your position has been unwavering, right? A simple yes or no
will do.

As I've said before, everyone has a right to their own personal
guiding principles -- but YOU don't have the right to hide yours while
impugning those of others.

And by the way, thanks once again for clarifying what is and is not
"ad hominem." I guess I always know I'm safe on that count if I just
follow your example...

TV
Milton L Mueller
2009-04-07 17:06:38 UTC
Permalink
> From: Tom Vest [mailto:***@pch.net]
> principled defense of the AT&T monopoly

Whaaaa? Tom, I really think you've lost it.
Ted Mittelstaedt
2009-04-07 18:01:56 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: Jeremy H.Griffith; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1
> can youplease help?
>
> Jeremy:
> Like a few others, you are dead set against any market
> transfer policy, right? (A yes or no will suffice -- and
> please, no need for the smileys)
>
> Your principled opposition to the involvement of monetary
> exchanges in address allocations is clear. Why pretend, then,
> that this debate is about a sunset date?
>

You are addressing Jeremy and maybe he is dead-set against a
transfer policy and as a result, is looking at the sunset
clause as a way of killing it.

But a great many other people, such as myself, are dead-set
against a transfer policy BUT we are willing to give you
pro-transfer policy advocates a 1 year chance to run out and fall
flat on your face because we are already convinced that a
transfer policy will be an extreme mess with many bad side
effects.

When you have children, you can tell them a dozen
times that if they stick their fingers on a hot stove that
they are going to get burned - but you know perfectly well
that your just eventually going to have to let them go ahead
and do it, and get their fingers burned, because they are
just too thick-headed to believe you until it happens to them.

Of course, you also know as a parent, that even though they
do end up burning their fingers, they will pretend that they
didn't, since they would die first before admitting to you that
you were right. Of course, you will notice that from that
point on they will stop attempting to stick their fingers on
the hot stove.

That is the situation from MY point of view with a transfer
policy. You and the other pro-transfer advocates are arguing
from a theoretical point, not a practical point of view. You
desperately want the reality to match the ideal. I am not
saying that your ideal is bad. It's flaw is in application to
the reality of things. I've learned over time that when people
argue from their ideal they will refuse to give it up even when
proven wrong.

For an obvious example, even though in the US the Republicans
economic philosophy of deregulation of monopolies and loose
control of the financial system has now been thoroughly discredited
for the SECOND time (the first was back in 1930) the die-hard
Republicans are, amazingly enough, STILL arguing in favor of it.
They will go to their graves believing they were right and it
was never their fault.

Similarly with the transfer policy, I expect that in 3 years the
mess it made will be obvious to everyone - but YOU personally will
STILL be arguing in favor of it, and be dismissing all the bad
side-effects as not the fault of the idea.

Thus, I'm willing to give you a 1 year chance because I think you will
merely succeed at proving to all the undecided people out there
what a bad idea it is. That is why I'm only in favor of this
if the sunset clause is retained.

Ted
Joe Maimon
2009-04-06 13:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <***@rollernet.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>>>
>>> * IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>>> * Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where X is
>>> reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year 3000.
>>
>> +1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:
>>
> While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
> I think that 2010 would be far too early. IANA runout will probably occur
> somewhere in 2010-2011. I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
> this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful. Would you
> accept a 12/31/2013 date?
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Owen

Owen,

The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.

A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not
require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the
BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late
to the part anyway.

The real concern is hoarding and speculation in a market gone awry and
uncontrollable. A sunset date could just be red flag waving in front of
the capitalist bull.

To simply garner support is not a valid idea in my opinion, it is just a
gimmick, one that has been successfully avoided up till this point.

As it stands, it would appear that a Sunset Clause is a poison pill.

Joe
William Herrin
2009-04-06 14:29:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Joe Maimon <***@chl.com> wrote:
> A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not
> require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the
> BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late
> to the part anyway.

Joe,

Once we've seen how 2008-6 works, prevailing opinion in this group
will fall into one of several ranges:

1. Consensus to continue the policy.
2. Consensus to change the policy.
3. Consensus to abandon the policy.
4. No consensus to take action.

Now, it's always harder to build a consensus for something than it is
to take no action. So for any random proposal the most probable result
is #4: no consensus.

With a sunset clause, the original policy goes away absent #1.
Without it, only #2 or #3 removes it, and then only with the AC's
recommendation and board's approval.


The transfer proposals before 2008-6 lacked a sunset clause. Folks
like myself sat on the sidelines and said, "Yeah, a transfer policy is
probably a good idea but this ain't it." And there weren't enough
folks favoring each transfer policy to achieve consensus.

The genius of proposal 2008-6 is that the author said, "Okay, give it
a chance. We'll make sure up front that if it turns out badly, the
policy won't stick around." That addition was enough to put it over
the top where the ones before had failed.

Stripping the sunset strips the consensus that found 2008-6 acceptable.

And the support for 2009-1 is markedly thin on the ground.


Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William D. Herrin ................ ***@dirtside.com ***@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
John Curran
2009-04-06 14:37:59 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:29 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> The genius of proposal 2008-6 is that the author said, "Okay, give it
> a chance. We'll make sure up front that if it turns out badly, the
> policy won't stick around." That addition was enough to put it over
> the top where the ones before had failed.
>
> Stripping the sunset strips the consensus that found 2008-6
> acceptable.

Bill -

Do you see any potential that a unset clause will encourage well-
informed
parties to act sooner in seeking address blocks via this policy,
resulting
in much fewer idle IPv4 blocks available at the point in time when the
general industry experiences the need to obtain such?

/John
William Herrin
2009-04-06 15:20:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:37 AM, John Curran <***@istaff.org> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:29 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The genius of proposal 2008-6 is that the author said, "Okay, give it
>> a chance. We'll make sure up front that if it turns out badly, the
>> policy won't stick around." That addition was enough to put it over
>> the top where the ones before had failed.
>>
>> Stripping the sunset strips the consensus that found 2008-6 acceptable.
>
> Do you see any potential that a sunset clause will encourage well-informed
> parties to act sooner in seeking address blocks via this policy, resulting
> in much fewer idle IPv4 blocks available at the point in time when the
> general industry experiences the need to obtain such?

John,

Yes, I see that potential. I considered it back when I chose to support 2008-6.

Practically speaking, I think the hoarding is already in full swing.
Look what the big players are doing in their wireless arms. A globally
routable IP address for every cell phone? It makes little difference
which blocks get hoarded.

Until the free pool is actually exhausted, there's very little to gain
by exercising 2008-6. The registrant arriving has to demonstrate the
same need that they'd demonstrate for the same size block from the
free pool. You could acquire blocks that are potentially more
desirable than the dregs of the free pool (e.g. small blocks in the
swamp) but that strikes me as an expensive and chancy play...
especially if a sunset clause warns that you might not be able to sell
them later.

As for well-informed parties, I expect that word will get around
pretty fast once IANA gives out its last /8. We'll see, "Web runs out
of addresses," on the front page of at least a couple major US
newspapers. Until then, well, like I said the hoarding will neither
speed up nor slow down as a result of 2008-6.

With respect to idle blocks, I doubt there are many. I expect there to
be a huge number of undertasked blocks: address space dedicated to
functions that could be re-engineered to consume fewer addresses if
there was enough profit to be made in doing so. Public IPs for cell
phones, for example. But I expect the genuinely idle blocks to vanish
quickly regardless.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William D. Herrin ................ ***@dirtside.com ***@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
David Farmer
2009-04-06 19:02:41 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:

> The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.
>
> A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not
> require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the
> BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late
> to the part anyway.

So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the
sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.

But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a
sunset clause. And at least the way it is being presented, it
isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy,
but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset
clause.

Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy
Template? If all policies should be Permanent, which is what
people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from
the Policy Template?

>
Ted Mittelstaedt
2009-04-06 19:11:52 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:03 PM
> To: Joe Maimon
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with
> 2009-1,can you please help?
>
> On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> > The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset
> clause appeals.
> >
> > A policy that works as intended should either obsolete
> itself or not
> > require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what
> > the BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most
> likely be too
> > late to the part anyway.
>
> So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the
> sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.
>
> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy
> with a sunset clause. And at least the way it is being
> presented, it isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a
> Transfer policy, but a more philosophical opposition to any
> policy with a sunset clause.
>

David,

I'm reading a lot of posts against a sunset clause, too. But,
they are all from the same small handful of people. That doesn't
qualify as "a lot of opposition". In fact, the opposition to
removing the sunset clause seems to be much broader.

Ted
Scott Leibrand
2009-04-06 19:18:22 UTC
Permalink
I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful if folks
who haven't already expressed an opinion could do so. And hopefully
we'll get broader participation at San Antonio, too.

-Scott

On Apr 6, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <***@ipinc.net> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net
>> [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:03 PM
>> To: Joe Maimon
>> Cc: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with
>> 2009-1,can you please help?
>>
>> On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:
>>
>>> The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset
>> clause appeals.
>>>
>>> A policy that works as intended should either obsolete
>> itself or not
>>> require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what
>>> the BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most
>> likely be too
>>> late to the part anyway.
>>
>> So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the
>> sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.
>>
>> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy
>> with a sunset clause. And at least the way it is being
>> presented, it isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a
>> Transfer policy, but a more philosophical opposition to any
>> policy with a sunset clause.
>>
>
> David,
>
> I'm reading a lot of posts against a sunset clause, too. But,
> they are all from the same small handful of people. That doesn't
> qualify as "a lot of opposition". In fact, the opposition to
> removing the sunset clause seems to be much broader.
>
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Ted Mittelstaedt
2009-04-06 19:38:29 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:18 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: David Farmer; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
> can you please help?
>
> I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful
> if folks who haven't already expressed an opinion could do
> so.

That opinion is either:

1) I don't care.

2) Your going to do what you want anyway, so why bother saying
anything.


Ted
Scott Leibrand
2009-04-06 20:06:24 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 2009, at 12:38 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <***@ipinc.net> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:***@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:18 PM
>>
>> I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful
>> if folks who haven't already expressed an opinion could do
>> so.
>
> That opinion is either:
>
> 1) I don't care.
>
> 2) Your going to do what you want anyway, so why bother saying
> anything.

I think there's something else going on. We routinely get in-depth
discussion of some issues on PPML, but usually from a small group of
active participants. We then have hundreds of attendees at the public
policy meetings, where another group of active participants does most
of the talking at the mic. But then, when we have a vote, most of the
silent attendees express their opinion, based on the arguments
presented.

Perhaps we should make more use of online polling mechanisms to
accomplish something similar on PPML. Or perhaps the current system
works well enough.

Thoughts?

-Scott
Ted Mittelstaedt
2009-04-06 21:04:41 UTC
Permalink
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:06 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
> can you please help?
>
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 12:38 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <***@ipinc.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:18 PM
> >>
> >> I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful if
> >> folks who haven't already expressed an opinion could do so.
> >
> > That opinion is either:
> >
> > 1) I don't care.
> >
> > 2) Your going to do what you want anyway, so why bother saying
> > anything.
>
> I think there's something else going on. We routinely get
> in-depth discussion of some issues on PPML, but usually from
> a small group of active participants. We then have hundreds
> of attendees at the public policy meetings, where another
> group of active participants does most of the talking at the
> mic. But then, when we have a vote, most of the silent
> attendees express their opinion, based on the arguments presented.
>
> Perhaps we should make more use of online polling mechanisms
> to accomplish something similar on PPML. Or perhaps the
> current system works well enough.
>
> Thoughts?
>

The State of Oregon (where I live) is one of the few or only
states that introduced vote-by-mail a few years ago. Today,
ALL elections, including the Presidential election we just had,
are vote-by-mail. There are no longer any polling places.
(you can drop ballots off at any post office the day of the
election if you're a lazy ass and don't send it in on time)

During the campaign to go vote-by-mail there were some trial
balloons floated about online voting. There is no doubt in my
mind that properly structured, online voting would work and
meet all the tests against fraud. But, these balloons were
shot down instantly from people across the political spectrum for
an enormous number of baloney reasons. I simply do not think
that people are ready to consider online poll results seriously,
no matter how well the poll is done.

Ted
Scott Beuker
2009-04-06 23:23:47 UTC
Permalink
As someone who struggles to find the time to read all of the PPML,
I've longed for a while now for some kind of system that rewards
brevity. I generally find participation pointless because a small,
very vocal group tend to force their opinions with sheer quantity.
By the time I've caught up to the backlog, the list has moved on to
the next topic.

It might seem stringent at first, but I think a measure to limit the
number of posts anyone can make to x posts per y hours would be
beneficial to the larger base of participants. I'd favour a limit
on the length of messages, too. Force people to think about what
they write a little harder, increase the signal and limit the noise.
Exceptions of course for the Board/AC.

I know before I send it that this probably won't be a very popular
suggestion, but if you want me to keep up with discussion and provide
more timely feedback on policies and ideas, this is how to do it.

- Scott


> I think there's something else going on. We routinely get in-depth
> discussion of some issues on PPML, but usually from a small group of
> active participants. We then have hundreds of attendees at the public
> policy meetings, where another group of active participants does most
> of the talking at the mic. But then, when we have a vote, most of the
> silent attendees express their opinion, based on the arguments
> presented.
>
> Perhaps we should make more use of online polling mechanisms to
> accomplish something similar on PPML. Or perhaps the current system
> works well enough.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Scott
Micah Anderson
2009-04-07 00:51:04 UTC
Permalink
* Scott Beuker <***@sjrb.ca> [2009-04-06 19:24-0400]:
> As someone who struggles to find the time to read all of the PPML,
> I've longed for a while now for some kind of system that rewards
> brevity. I generally find participation pointless because a small,
> very vocal group tend to force their opinions with sheer quantity.
> By the time I've caught up to the backlog, the list has moved on to
> the next topic.

I couldn't agree more. There have been so many posts to this list lately
that I've been forced to ignore most of them, and I fear that doing so I
am tacitly giving some kind of passive consensus to something that I
might not otherwise support.

I can't handle a digest either, but perhaps a periodic summary of
postitions and arguments would be helpful before any major decision was
made?

micah
Milton L Mueller
2009-04-07 04:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Online polling mechanisms are worth a try, as long as they have the status of straw polls with no binding effect. Keep in mind that such voting takes time out of busy people's day, and the same highly motivated people who dominate discussions on the list are also the most likely to spend that time. But at least you would have a raw number indicating how many people voted, and what proportion that was of the total list participants.

> -----Original Message-----
> I think there's something else going on. We routinely get in-depth
> discussion of some issues on PPML, but usually from a small group of
> active participants. We then have hundreds of attendees at the public
> policy meetings, where another group of active participants does most
> of the talking at the mic. But then, when we have a vote, most of the
> silent attendees express their opinion, based on the arguments
> presented.
>
> Perhaps we should make more use of online polling mechanisms to
> accomplish something similar on PPML. Or perhaps the current system
> works well enough.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Scott
Sweeting, John
2009-04-07 02:12:30 UTC
Permalink
or perhaps it is:

Why would I want to subject myself to the ridicule of some of the people on this list?

I'm just saying.....

________________________________

From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net on behalf of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Mon 4/6/2009 3:38 PM
To: 'Scott Leibrand'
Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,can you please help?






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:***@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:18 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: David Farmer; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1,
> can you please help?
>
> I think this is true on both sides. It would be really useful
> if folks who haven't already expressed an opinion could do
> so.

That opinion is either:

1) I don't care.

2) Your going to do what you want anyway, so why bother saying
anything.


Ted

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Joe Maimon
2009-04-06 19:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:


>
> But,
> they are all from the same small handful of people.

That does seem to be the pattern here, no matter which thread.

I think we could use some mailing list analysis reports.

Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on
this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of list
posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
Jeremy H.Griffith
2009-04-06 20:05:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <***@chl.com> wrote:

>Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on
>this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of list
>posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.

+1

I like that idea. Maybe something like SurveyMonkey? Or the
sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?

--JHG <***@omsys.com>
Scott Leibrand
2009-04-06 20:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Jeremy, Joe, and others,

ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect feedback
from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each subscriber only
responds once). We currently don't use it on a regular basis: If I
recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.

One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance
of each public policy meeting. Is that the kind of thing you're
thinking would be a good idea? Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Thanks,
Scott

Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <***@chl.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on
>> this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of list
>> posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
>>
>
> +1
>
> I like that idea. Maybe something like SurveyMonkey? Or the
> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
>
> --JHG <***@omsys.com>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
Michael K. Smith - Adhost
2009-04-06 20:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Hello Scott:

I think that's a great idea. Perhaps we could have...

1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
a) You don't support the emergency action
b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
c) Both (a) and (b)

Regards,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:27 PM
To: Jeremy H.Griffith
Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all
draftpolicies?

Jeremy, Joe, and others,

ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect feedback
from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each subscriber only
responds once). We currently don't use it on a regular basis: If I
recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.

One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance

of each public policy meeting. Is that the kind of thing you're
thinking would be a good idea? Does anyone else have an opinion on
this?

Thanks,
Scott

Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <***@chl.com>
wrote:
>
>
>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on

>> this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of
list
>> posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
>>
>
> +1
>
> I like that idea. Maybe something like SurveyMonkey? Or the
> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
>
> --JHG <***@omsys.com>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Matthew Kaufman
2009-04-06 20:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> Hello Scott:
>
> I think that's a great idea. Perhaps we could have...
>
>
0) Do you support the idea of a transfer policy above and beyond the
existing system?
> 1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
> 2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
> 3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
> a) You don't support the emergency action
> b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
> c) Both (a) and (b)
>
>
Just my thought for how to calibrate the survey a little better.

Matthew Kaufman
John Curran
2009-04-06 20:59:00 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> ...
> 0) Do you support the idea of a transfer policy above and beyond the
> existing system?

Note that a very similar poll to this was taken during 2008-2; it might
be worth asking the exact same questions if the goal is to determine
how viewpoints have changed since then...
<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/surveys/pdfs/survey_summary_08242008.pdf
>

FYI,
/John
Joe Maimon
2009-04-06 20:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Scott,

A poll to accompany last call on the list for proposal discussion would
probably be good idea. Not quite sure its a good idea as well to make it
mandatory or binding.

I suppose a poll on the proposal for polls on proposal is in order.

Joe


Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Jeremy, Joe, and others,
>
> ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect feedback
> from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each subscriber only
> responds once). We currently don't use it on a regular basis: If I
> recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.
>
> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in
> advance of each public policy meeting. Is that the kind of thing
> you're thinking would be a good idea? Does anyone else have an
> opinion on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <***@chl.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof
>>> on this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of
>>> list posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I like that idea. Maybe something like SurveyMonkey? Or the
>> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
>>
>> --JHG <***@omsys.com>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>
>
Scott Leibrand
2009-04-06 21:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Heh. Perhaps we need a poll about whether to take a poll about taking
polls. :-)

I like the idea of having a single regularly scheduled poll, which
contains questions about support for every draft policy, as well as any
additional questions the AC decides would be useful for individual draft
policies. In any event, we'll discuss this at one of our upcoming AC
calls, and I'm guessing will have something implemented for the next
policy cycle.

Additional feedback on whether/how we should structure things is of
course still welcome.

-Scott

Joe Maimon wrote:
> Scott,
>
> A poll to accompany last call on the list for proposal discussion
> would probably be good idea. Not quite sure its a good idea as well to
> make it mandatory or binding.
>
> I suppose a poll on the proposal for polls on proposal is in order.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Jeremy, Joe, and others,
>>
>> ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect
>> feedback from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each
>> subscriber only responds once). We currently don't use it on a
>> regular basis: If I recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.
>>
>> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in
>> advance of each public policy meeting. Is that the kind of thing
>> you're thinking would be a good idea? Does anyone else have an
>> opinion on this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>> Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <***@chl.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof
>>>> on this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis
>>>> of list posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I like that idea. Maybe something like SurveyMonkey? Or the
>>> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
>>>
>>> --JHG <***@omsys.com>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>
>>
Milton L Mueller
2009-04-07 04:41:02 UTC
Permalink
A regular schedule with multiple issues would diminish (but not eliminate) listserv electioneering....good idea.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 5:00 PM
> To: Joe Maimon
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all draft
> policies?
>
> Heh. Perhaps we need a poll about whether to take a poll about taking
> polls. :-)
>
> I like the idea of having a single regularly scheduled poll, which
> contains questions about support for every draft policy, as well as any
> additional questions the AC decides would be useful for individual draft
> policies. In any event, we'll discuss this at one of our upcoming AC
> calls, and I'm guessing will have something implemented for the next
> policy cycle.
>
> Additional feedback on whether/how we should structure things is of
> course still welcome.
>
> -Scott
>
> Joe Maimon wrote:
> > Scott,
> >
> > A poll to accompany last call on the list for proposal discussion
> > would probably be good idea. Not quite sure its a good idea as well to
> > make it mandatory or binding.
> >
> > I suppose a poll on the proposal for polls on proposal is in order.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > Scott Leibrand wrote:
> >> Jeremy, Joe, and others,
> >>
> >> ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect
> >> feedback from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each
> >> subscriber only responds once). We currently don't use it on a
> >> regular basis: If I recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.
> >>
> >> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in
> >> advance of each public policy meeting. Is that the kind of thing
> >> you're thinking would be a good idea? Does anyone else have an
> >> opinion on this?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <***@chl.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof
> >>>> on this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis
> >>>> of list posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> I like that idea. Maybe something like SurveyMonkey? Or the
> >>> sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
> >>>
> >>> --JHG <***@omsys.com>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PPML
> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >>> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
William Herrin
2009-04-06 20:53:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Scott Leibrand <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance
> of each public policy meeting.  Is that the kind of thing you're
> thinking would be a good idea?  Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Scott,

I think that's a good idea, but there's risk.

First, I think the formal questions should be limited to: Do you
support, oppose or take no position on proposal X as written.

If you ask more specific questions, you'll bias the results with the
choice of questions. That bias is okay in a forum like this one where
folks can give a free-form answer, drive the discussion off towards
their own biases and pose their own questions. It'll foul the
statistical validity when the answers are pre-selected.

Second, you have the uneducated voter problem. The folks who've
offered opinions on the list have done so after becoming at least
somewhat familiar with the issues surrounding the proposal, not just
the text of the proposal itself. Some of the lurkers, perhaps many,
won't have done so.

I don't know the answer to that one... Maybe you also ask, "Have you
followed the discussion about this proposal: closely, somewhat, not at
all." Maybe you sort the answers into two lists: responses from those
who have posted to PPML in the past 6 months and responses from those
who have not.

Then too, there's gaming the system. It isn't particularly hard to
sign up 100 gmail accounts for PPML if someone expects you to issue a
poll. I don't know how you deal with that except to use the results
indirectly, as a tool to check the consensus you think you see on PPML
as opposed to a direct tool to measure the consensus.


Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William D. Herrin ................ ***@dirtside.com ***@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Jeremy H.Griffith
2009-04-06 20:59:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:26:52 -0700, Scott Leibrand <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance
>of each public policy meeting. Is that the kind of thing you're
>thinking would be a good idea? Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Excellent, Scott! Let's start using it regularly! I'd love to
see a reality check on the rhetoric.

In terms of the current issue, I like Mike Smith's response too.

--JHG <***@omsys.com>
David Farmer
2009-04-07 02:13:27 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Apr 2009 David Farmer wrote:

> On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> > The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.
> >
> > A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not
> > require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the
> > BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late
> > to the part anyway.
>
> So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the
> sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.
>
> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a
> sunset clause. And at least the way it is being presented, it
> isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy,
> but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset
> clause.
>
> Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy
> Template? If all policies should be Permanent, which is what
> people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from
> the Policy Template?
>
> >
Milton L Mueller
2009-04-07 04:54:11 UTC
Permalink
David:
Another way of interpreting your useful research on policy term is that, in most cases, policies are immediate in effect and unlimited in duration.

> > But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a
> > sunset clause. And at least the way it is being presented, it
> > isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy,
> > but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset
> > clause.

What you're hearing from me is not a general opposition to having sunsets; they can be appropriate in certain circumstances.

But a sunset on a transfer policy is disastrous. You are dealing with economic incentives fundamental to the operation of the industry and in a very sensitive transitional period; operators have to know what the ground rules are with respect to their ability to acquire and dispose of addresses during the migration/transitional period. The date for a sunset cannot be anything but utterly arbitrary, since we don't know how long this transition will take. The idea of lurching from one system to another and possibly back again based on an arbitrary, pre-specified date doesn't make any sense to me.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy
> > Template? If all policies should be Permanent, which is what
> > people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from
> > the Policy Template?
> >
> > >
Owen DeLong
2009-04-07 06:49:21 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> David:
> Another way of interpreting your useful research on policy term is
> that, in most cases, policies are immediate in effect and unlimited
> in duration.
>
>>> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a
>>> sunset clause. And at least the way it is being presented, it
>>> isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy,
>>> but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset
>>> clause.
>
> What you're hearing from me is not a general opposition to having
> sunsets; they can be appropriate in certain circumstances.
>
> But a sunset on a transfer policy is disastrous. You are dealing
> with economic incentives fundamental to the operation of the
> industry and in a very sensitive transitional period; operators have
> to know what the ground rules are with respect to their ability to
> acquire and dispose of addresses during the migration/transitional
> period. The date for a sunset cannot be anything but utterly
> arbitrary, since we don't know how long this transition will take.
> The idea of lurching from one system to another and possibly back
> again based on an arbitrary, pre-specified date doesn't make any
> sense to me.
>
Re-evaluating this in 3 years is a perfectly reasonable protection to
build in in this case. In 2 years, if it looks like another year isn't
long
enough and the transfer policy is doing what it needs to do, it should
not be difficult at all to get consensus around extending or eliminating
the sunset.

As such, given that absent a sunset, the community seems nearly
50/50 divided on whether a liberalized transfer policy should exist
at all, I really don't see that a sunset is harmful in this case. I
would
think that the pro-transfer group would welcome it as a compromise
which creates a much greater level of community support to try this
policy.

On the other hand, looking at it from the anti-transfer group's
perspective, given that the community is very nearly 50/50, it
will be just as hard to abandon a potentially failed transfer policy
(after all, there is no reason to believe that the definition of failed
is universal in this case) as it was to get consensus around
creating it in the first place.

These opinions are strictly my own and I am sure there are
many on the AC who do not agree with me.

Owen
Steve Feldman
2009-04-06 20:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Here are my thoughts on 2009-1, using Marla's analysis as a framework:

0) 2008-6 has been adopted, though not yet implemented. Thats a fact,
not up for debate.

1) Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1):

I see the point of those who want to leave it in to force discussion
in a few years. But realistically, the discussion will happen anyways
if the transfer policy doesn't turn out to be perfect. I am neutral
on this part of 2009-1.

2) Implementation Date Now and no wait time:

2008-1 leaves the implementation date to the Board's discretion.
Since 2009-1 was proposed by the Board, that's effectively not a
change. I am neutral on this part of 2009-1.

3) New Definition “Organization. An Organization is one or more legal
entities under common control or ownership.”:

As has been noted, this is a substantial change to existing policy,
with the potential to cause problems for some classes of
organizations. I am against this part of 2009-1, and feel that it
should be separated out into its own policy proposal so the
implications can be discussed on their own merits.

Overall, I am against 2009-1 as written, and would oppose any version
which includes the redefinition of an organization except as a
standalone proposal.

Steve
John Santos
2009-04-07 00:03:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, David Farmer wrote:

> On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> > The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.
> >
> > A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not
> > require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the
> > BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late
> > to the part anyway.
>
> So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the
> sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.
>
> But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a
> sunset clause. And at least the way it is being presented, it
> isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy,
> but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset
> clause.

I'm seeing a lot of posts, but most are from a small number of
people. All the opposition seems to come from people in favor of
a transfer policy without a sunset.

I'm not hearing any opposition to a sunset clause from those who
oppose a transfer policy. You would think at least some in hard
opposition would also not want a transfer clause because it would
make a transfer policy more palatable to those on the fence.

I personally support a sunset clause on something this controversial.

Are people sitting on the fence likely to *oppose* continuation
of the policy if it works well? (If so, they weren't truly on
the fence.) If it works well, there should be no problem gaining
a consensus to continue it when it comes up for review.


>
> Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy
> Template? If all policies should be Permanent, which is what
> people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from
> the Policy Template?
>
> >
John Santos
2009-04-07 01:40:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:

> Hello Scott:
>
> I think that's a great idea. Perhaps we could have...
>
> 1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
> 2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
> 3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
> a) You don't support the emergency action
> b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
> c) Both (a) and (b)

d) You don't support the re-definition of "organization"
e) You don't support the extention of the policy to IPv6
f) You don't support the extention of the policy to other ARIN
number resources. (I can't remember what the magic
network number is called, and the ARIN web site is dead
in the water. What a waste of time! #$(*#$*((!)

>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-***@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-***@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:27 PM
> To: Jeremy H.Griffith
> Cc: 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Should we regularly poll the PPML about all
> draftpolicies?
>
> Jeremy, Joe, and others,
>
> ARIN does have a survey mechanism, which allows us to collect feedback
> from subscribed PPML participants (and ensures each subscriber only
> responds once). We currently don't use it on a regular basis: If I
> recall correctly, the last poll was on 2008-2.
>
> One thing we could do is poll the PPML on all draft policies, in advance
>
> of each public policy meeting. Is that the kind of thing you're
> thinking would be a good idea? Does anyone else have an opinion on
> this?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:23:15 -0400, Joe Maimon <***@chl.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Perhaps a more formal method to indicate consensus or lack thereof on
>
> >> this list for proposals is in order, I imagine manual analysis of
> list
> >> posting traffic is imprecise and tedious.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I like that idea. Maybe something like SurveyMonkey? Or the
> > sort of polls used on Yahoo Groups?
> >
> > --JHG <***@omsys.com>
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>

--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
Scott Beuker
2009-04-07 00:01:23 UTC
Permalink
g) You don't support a policy that would allow for the transfer of
space which was only acquired less than <n> years ago

Here's an alternative to all this... ask if the voter supports a
given policy proposal as written, and if they answer anything other
than yes (no, haven't decided, I don't care), allow them to
express their reason in 250 characters or less.

When the results are disseminated, make the various comments
available for those who wish to read them.

With complicated and controversial policy proposals like we're
seeing lately, you're never going to be able to nail down all the
reasons people might not support them.

- Scott

> > 1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
> > 2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
> > 3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
> > a) You don't support the emergency action
> > b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
> > c) Both (a) and (b)
>
> d) You don't support the re-definition of "organization"
> e) You don't support the extention of the policy to IPv6
> f) You don't support the extention of the policy to other ARIN
> number resources. (I can't remember what the magic
> network number is called, and the ARIN web site is dead
> in the water. What a waste of time! #$(*#$*((!)
>
Scott Leibrand
2009-04-10 21:53:37 UTC
Permalink
The ARIN Advisory Council discussed the topic of polling at our meeting
on Wednesday. While we didn't make a motion or resolution on the
subject, it looks like we're mostly leaning toward polling the
subscribers PPML on draft policy 2009-1 after the San Antonio public
policy meeting, if we still think it is appropriate after the meeting.
This would allow everyone to express a well-informed opinion after they have
watched/heard/read the deliberative discussion there. It will also
allow us to coordinate the questions asked in the poll with those asked
at the meeting.

In addition, the AC we will also be discussing, in an AC workshop at San
Antonio, the more general question of how to do regular recurring
polling of PPML subscribers, so that we can put something in place for
the next policy cycle.

It is also worth noting that everyone on the PPML is invited to
participate, in person or remotely, in the San Antonio public policy
meeting. If you can't make it in person, the entire meeting is webcast,
and remote participants can now participate in real time, asking
questions, making comments, and voting on the questions put before the
community at the meeting. ARIN has already sent out a note about how to
register as a remote participant, and I would encourage everyone to take
advantage of that opportunity.

-Scott
Member of the ARIN Advisory Council, speaking for myself

Scott Beuker wrote:
> g) You don't support a policy that would allow for the transfer of
> space which was only acquired less than <n> years ago
>
> Here's an alternative to all this... ask if the voter supports a
> given policy proposal as written, and if they answer anything other
> than yes (no, haven't decided, I don't care), allow them to
> express their reason in 250 characters or less.
>
> When the results are disseminated, make the various comments
> available for those who wish to read them.
>
> With complicated and controversial policy proposals like we're
> seeing lately, you're never going to be able to nail down all the
> reasons people might not support them.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>>> 1) Do you support 2008-6 as written?
>>> 2) Do you support 2009-1 as written?
>>> 3) If you answered "No" to (2), is it because:
>>> a) You don't support the emergency action
>>> b) You don't support the removal of the sunset clause
>>> c) Both (a) and (b)
>>>
>> d) You don't support the re-definition of "organization"
>> e) You don't support the extention of the policy to IPv6
>> f) You don't support the extention of the policy to other ARIN
>> number resources. (I can't remember what the magic
>> network number is called, and the ARIN web site is dead
>> in the water. What a waste of time! #$(*#$*((!)
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-***@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact ***@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
Loading...