Hi Owen,

On 25/09/15 09:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
It’s not ARIN’s mission to prevent profits nor did I say it was.

My point is that Elvis support for removing policy is strongly influenced by 
the potential windfall he stands to reap while not actually providing
any internet services in the process if the policy is changed as he wishes.
Please stop implying what influences my beliefs. I doubt you can read my mind.

I already said it several times that regardless of the outcome, there are plenty of organizations that have already received 'pre-approvals' and helping at least those will fill up my plate.. What do you mean we do not provide an internet service? We offer various services, not just the brokerage part.
As yo pointed out, many folks make a profit on various INETERNET SERVICES. 
Elvis, OTOH is not in the internet services business. He’s strictly
an address broker.
What do you mean by 'not in the internet services business' ? I think you are starting to be rude and would like to ask you to back off a bit. We offer various services to our customers: IP management, LIR management, audits, Sponsoring LIR services (RIPE Region), IPv6 migration support, etc...
It would be sort of like Realtors arguing against transfer taxes on real 
estate. An argument based solely in greed rather than any actual concern for 
the common good.
Again, you are just guessing why I am commenting on this policy proposal. As an ex-RIR employee, I've told you (and others) several times that I still want to do the right thing for the community. I have already made several policy proposals in the RIPE Region (one recently accepted by the community) and I am active in APNIC and now ARIN...

Owen, last time we discussed you said that you understand the need of brokers and while a few years back you did not agree with us existing, now you are no longer against... I see personal attacks in the two e-mails you sent and I don't understand where these come from.

Owen, please stop guessing what my business does and why I participate in the discussions. I doubt this is what an ARIN AC member should do..

regards,
Elvis

PS: I could have registered to the mailing list with my work e-mail address if all I wanted to do is to profit from my position on this (and other) policy proposals discussions. These messages are sent on my behalf and may or may not be the point of view of the company I work for

Owen

On Sep 24, 2015, at 13:53 , Steven Ryerse <srye...@eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

Many folks make a profit on various Internet services in this Region. ARIN was 
created to further the Internet and not stifle it.  Nowhere do I see that it is 
part of ARIN's mission to somehow prevent profits via policies. Appears to me 
to be all about the haves keeping the have nots from obtaining resources.  :-(

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf 
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:37 PM
To: el...@velea.eu
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based 
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Of course your position wouldn’t have anything to do with the profits you stand 
to make from an unrestricted transfer market.

Owen

On Sep 24, 2015, at 13:12 , Elvis Daniel Velea <el...@velea.eu> wrote:

Hi Owen,

On 24/09/15 22:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
Short answer: NO

Longer answer:

Finance alone does not reflect all community values. Eliminating
needs-based evaluation for transfers will foster an environment open
to speculation and other artifice used to maximize the monetization of address 
resources without providing the benefit to the community of maximizing 
utilization.
The environment open to speculation already exists, a needs-based criteria will 
not stop the ones that want to speculate. Keeping needs-based criteria in 
policy will only drive (keep some of the) transfers underground (ie: futures 
contracts, all kind of financial artifices). I actually believe the needs-based 
criteria removal will benefit the community by eliminating a barrier in the 
correct registration of the transfers (resources) in the registry (and whois).

The allocation era has passed, ARIN should just be a shepherd and record the 
transfers (and do the allocation exercise twice per year, when the IANA 
allocates the few crumbs remaining). From my experience and observations, if 
someone needs the IP addresses and has the money to pay for them I am sure that 
they will not be stopped by ARIN's needs-base criteria...
In fact, I believe that eliminating needs-basis will likely cause
actual utilization to be reduced in the long run in favor of financial 
manipulation.
I dare to disagree. From where I am standing, the removal of needs-basis 
criteria from the RIPE Region has increased utilization of the resources 
transferred through the IPv4 marketplace.
Additionally, the removal of the needs-basis criteria has increased the number 
of transfers, showing that the marketplace works and is useful to hundreds (or 
even thousands) of companies from the region.

I am not saying that the ARIN community should copy what the RIPE community has 
done. I am just saying that if something is working and it's usability is 
proven, it is rather strange to see some saying the opposite as an argument 
against the removal of the needs-based criteria.
Owen
cheers,
elvis
On Sep 24, 2015, at 11:55 , Leif Sawyer <lsaw...@gci.com> wrote:

Now that we've reached the magic ZERO in the free pool, what does
the community think about this new draft policy?

Should ARIN begin the process of streamlining the IPv4 policy so
that it is geared more toward the transfer market, and remove "need"
as a criteria in certain sections of the NRPM to increase the database accuracy?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]
On Behalf Of ARIN
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:54 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating
needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of
IPv4 netblocks

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4
transfers of IPv4 netblocks

On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 
transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html

You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft Policy 
2015-9 on the Public Policy Mailing List.

The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this 
draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as 
stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:

   * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
   * Technically Sound
   * Supported by the Community

The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4
transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Date: 23 September 2015

Problem statement:

The current policies in NRPM sections 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 regarding transfer of 
IPv4 netblocks from one organization to another are currently a hindrance in 
ensuring database accuracy. In practice, ARIN staff are utilizing those polices 
to refuse to complete database updates which would reflect an accurate transfer 
of control / utilization of netblocks in cases where ARIN doesn't agree that 
the recipient organization has need, or more often where the recipient 
organization bypasses the ARIN registry entirely in order to secure the needed 
IPv4 netblocks in a more timely fashion directly from the current holder.
Additionally, the 8.1 introduction section includes a perceived "threat"
of reclaim which serves as a hindrance to long-term resource holders 
approaching ARIN with database updates when transferring resources. The result 
is that the data visible in ARIN registry continues to become more inaccurate 
over time.

Policy statement:

This proposal is for the following language changes in the respective NRPM 
sections in order to eliminate all needs-based evaluation for the respective 
transfer type, and allow transfers to be reflected in the database as they 
occur following an agreement of transfer from the resource provider to the 
recipient.

Section 8.1 Principles:

- Strike the 3rd paragraph which begins with "Number resources are issued, based on justified need, to 
organizations. . ." since it mostly reiterates other sections of ARIN policy. All transfers are 
subjected to those policies, as called out in 8.2, 8.3, 8.4. Additionally, removing this paragraph removes 
the perceived "threat" of reclaim which serves as a hindrance to long-term resource holders 
approaching ARIN with database updates, since in practice ARIN has not been forcibly reclaiming IP resources 
assigned to "failed businesses."

Section 8.2 Mergers and Acquisitions:

- Change the 4th bullet from:

"The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies."

to:

"The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies, excluding any 
policies related to needs-based justification or inspection of current or future 
utilization rate."

- Remove entirely the last paragraph which reads "In the event that number resources 
of the combined organizations are no longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN 
becomes aware of the transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work 
with the resource holder(s) to return or transfer resources as needed to restore 
compliance via the processes outlined in current ARIN policy."

Section 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region:

- Change the first bullet under "Conditions on recipient of the transfer" from:

"The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address 
resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."

to:

"The recipient must sign an RSA."

- Change the 2nd bullet under "Conditions on recipient of the transfer"
from:

"The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies."

to:

"The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies, excluding any 
policies related to needs-based justification or inspection of current or future 
utilization rate."

Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients:

- Change the introductory language from:

"Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and 
share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies."

to:

"Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and 
share reciprocal, compatible, policies."

- Change the 2nd bullet under "Conditions on recipient of the transfer"
from:

"Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN policies and sign 
an RSA for the resources being received."

to:

"Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN policies, 
excluding any policies related to needs-based justification or inspection of current or 
future utilization rate, and sign an RSA for the resources being received."

- Remove entirely the 3rd bullet under "Conditions on recipient of the transfer" which 
reads "Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply 
of IPv4 address space."

Comments:

a.      Timetable for implementation: Immediate

b.      Anything else

As the "free pool" for 4 of the 5 world's RIRs (APNIC, RIPE, LACNIC,
and
ARIN) has now been exhausted, networks in need of additional IPv4 addresses have shifted away from 
the practice of receiving them from the RIR's resource pool. Instead, networks in need are seeking 
out current holders of IPv4 resources who are willing to transfer them in order to fulfil that 
need. Accordingly, the RIR's primary responsibility vis-à-vis IPv4 netblock governance has shifted 
from "allocation" to "documentation." In other words, the focus must move away 
from practicing conservation and fair distribution (e.g. following guidelines set forth in RFC2050) 
to ensuring an accurate registry database of which organization is utilizing a given netblock as a 
result of transfers which occur between organizations.

The RIPE registry can be used as a reference of one which has evolved over the past 
couple years to shift their focus away from conservation/allocation and towards database 
accuracy. IPv4 netblock transfers within that RIR consist merely of validating 
authenticity of the parties requesting a transfer. Provided the organizations meet the 
basic requirement of RIR membership, and that the transferring organization has the valid 
authority to request the transfer, the transaction completes without any 
"needs-based" review.


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

Reply via email to