From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net]
ICP-2 is likely long overdue for a refresh at this point, and if there were a
group of brave souls
who wished to take that on (in conjunction with the ASO AC), we might be able
to achieve a
framework more suitable for the years that lie ahead...
MM:
> start from the perspective that
> it is simply to clarify that the resources are for global use, and ARIN's
> role is
> simply to be a facilitator within a reasonably local time-zone, and having
> local language support. Any language that implies that there is a limitation
> to use needs to be
Jimmy
Comments inline
I agree with many of your arguments, especially this one:
> -Original Message-
> As of now. there is really no pool of scarce IPv4 resources to
> distribute according to local policies...
> The purpose of having multiple RIRs in the first place, instead of one
>
As stated… The concern is the potential for A->B->Money lather, rinse, repeat.
If people abuse the policy ARIN has the leverage to affect the abusers, and
that should be enough. No need for a global policy.
ARIN has no leverage once the resources have left the ARIN region, so your
argument he
leverage to affect the abusers, and
that should be enough. No need for a global policy.
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 2:10 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Rudolph Daniel; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2
I don’t think anyone has said any
It’s very naïve for people to suggest that national policy in China is going to
be affected by a global policy of RIRs.
--MM
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Rudolph Daniel
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:49 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [
> -Original Message-
> If I am to take an ARIN centric approach I have to ask why I should care
> about problems in other regions that sound like they could solved by
> requesting resources from that region.
Why would you take an ARIN-centric approach? How about an Internet-centric
appr
> -Original Message-
> "How do we allow ARIN members to use ARIN space globally without
> restrictions, but prevent out of region organizations from becoming ARIN
> members for the purpose of acquiring ARIN resources to be used entirely
> outside the ARIN region?"
This issue is addressed
Bill
> -Original Message-
>
> 1. Permitted use of addresses outregion could subject ARIN to the legal
> jurisdiction in the myriad localities where the addresses are used. Dealing
> with that could be super expensive and could distract and draw resources
> away from ARIN's core function:
> -Original Message-
> existing policy and practice, I believe POC validation for POCs only in Whois
> as a result of SWIPs is unnecessary and unproductive.
I agree with this and believe that it is also a source of confusion and
irritation to the people who receive them.
If I understand what counsel is claiming, it is in a way a contrapositive
inference. That is- because ARIN does not assign resources to applicants who
do not have a presence within its region, there is no logical basis for
assertion of jurisdiction beyond that region.
MM: I thought we had al
are requesting
and using them based on local or global need, not specifically European need.
IT would be good to see RIPEclarify.
--MM
From: Kevin Blumberg [mailto:kev...@thewire.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 2:06 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Response t
Thanks, John, for engaging on the substantive issues. I welcome your response
as part of the needed dialogue.
Counsel is claiming that ICP-2 requires all usage of numbers to be bound to
exclusive RIR service regions
Milton -
Please provide reference for your statement above;
MM: When Cou
> -Original Message-
> Historically, there have been bad actors who have successfully obtained
> substantial IPv4 space from ARIN without having any customers or significant
> equipment in the region. A common method is to set up a routing
> infrastructure inside the ARIN region, and back
...@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 7:31 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Response to the ARIN counsel's assessment of 2014-1
(Out of region use)
Milton,
Everything you state below is your opinion, just as what counsel states is an
o
the basis of technical efficiency, or are RIRs here to fragment the
number distribution process into mutually exclusive territories? Will this
policy be adopted or not based on its merit and community support, or on vague
threats about governmental repercussions? I look forward to seeing you at
What he (Tony Hain) said!
Anyway, by the time 2014-1 gets implemented, the ARIN IPv4 free pool would be
depleted, and since most of the potential abuses of or questionable demand for
out of region use are motivated by ARIN's having the last free pool, I believe
the gaming argument is moot in a
So, if I'm a German corporation and I don't like RIPE's rules, I simply set up
a shell corporation in the US and get my addresses from ARIN, then use them in
Germany anyway? That doesn't sound right.
MM: There are these things called multinational corporations with global
networks. Ever hear
the subject of fierce debates. Do
you have specific suggestions for how we could fix this?
--MM
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:10 PM
> To: Martin Hannigan
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; arin-ppml@arin.net
>
Martin
As an AC member I would be very receptive to seeing forwarded emails from OIX
(or other trade association lists) that directly comment on specific ARIN
policies. I would certainly give them weight in determining community support.
A formal statement from the leadership of such an associat
I don't think you're getting the concept of small, Bill. Take a look at the
statistics that were gathered about what proportion of the number space a
number of /18s and below would consist of. It's less than 10% of the overall
transfer market, and an even smaller portion of the overall address
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]
> On Behalf Of William Herrin
>
> I'm don't think there is such a change but there are a few things that jump
> out at me as being particularly offensive.
>
> 1. This issue is not a concern for A
> -Original Message-
>
> So my plea is, "DON'T PANIC", everyone please have the patience and dignity
> to let things take their coarse. The ARIN free pool is not long for this
> world,
> start saying your goodbyes, and begin your grieving process now. Just like
> the death of an old fr
Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't work for
finite resources take a look at
a) radio spectrum auctions
b) land/real estate markets
c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were basically
abolished
d) stock markets (there are a fixed numb
Can we PLEASE change the header on this thread?
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]
> On Behalf Of Adam Thompson
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 2:28 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse; John Curran
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-
Oops, seems I forgot to add the link
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html
> -Original Message-
> From: Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:28 PM
> To: 'Jo Rhett'; 'Steven Ryerse'
> Cc: 'arin-ppml@arin.net'
> S
Jo and Steven:
As the shepherd for 2014-1 I am having trouble understanding the relevance of
arguments about needs assessment to the Out of Region Use proposal. That
proposal does not change needs assessment policies.
Here is a link to the latest draft of 2014-1. Do you have any comments
speci
OK, keep the language as it already was, then. Fine with me.
> -Original Message-
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net]
> >
> > I agree with Marty here. We could eliminate that, if you all think Section
> > 12
> is enough.
>
> Milton -
>
> Note that NRPM Section 12 provides onl
> -Original Message-
> > "ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's
> > number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use"
>
> I feel it should be eliminated. As it was mentioned at the microphone
> in the Baltimore meeting, ARIN isn't consistent in applications
section is also modified to reflect the overall simplification.
Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of
Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
===
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1 Out of Region Use
Date: 21 October
You ask, Owen, how do others in the community feel about this? I for one am
shaking my head in disbelief.
Are we really having a debate about parity between free pool allocations and
transfers? When the free pool ends in what, 6 months? 8 months? By the time any
of the policies we are debating n
I don't think it's a counterargument at all.
I could assert - and many people have, including an approved policy in RIPE -
that not exempting transfers from the same scrutiny as free pool allocations is
contrary to the good of the community. I would need to see some evidence and
argumentation,
> -Original Message-
> > What's the counter argument against 2014-14?
>
> Not a counter-argument per se, but just a note that is necessary for the ARIN
> AC
> to document why any draft policy enables fair and impartial number resource
> administration. In the case of 2014-14, this means
market economies
acquire resources.
Furthermore, the further out you extend the time horizon on 'normal' needs
assessment, the closer you are getting to forward-looking business case. I
don't agree there is some qualitative change there.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Mer
Any time any AC member says anything on this list they are speaking for
themselves, and not for the AC as a whole, unless otherwise designated.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller
> -Original Message-
> I do not believe IP as commodity is good for either operators, industry or the
> community. It will however serve as a wealth generator for a select few,
> which again is not the objective of ARIN. The good or bad of IP as a
> commodity is probably not the discuss
After reviewing both 2014-20 and 2014-14, I think Mike Burns is correct.
2014-20 (Transfer policy slow start...) is an attempt to simplify and automate
needs assessments for transfers. But 2014-14 (Removing needs test for small
transfers) is a much cleaner and simpler way of doing that. I see 20
a global
discussion by default, but it would, as Olivier suggests, be good for ARIN and
the other RIRs to show more initiative here.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: Olivier
ointly by the RIRs must be subject to
public comment on a global basis before it is submitted to the ICG
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
___
01 AM, Sweeting, John
mailto:john.sweet...@twcable.com>> wrote:
Good morning PPML,
Please provide comments in support or opposition as the plan is to vote to move
this to Recommended Draft Status for the Baltimore meeting.
Thanks,
John
On 7/25/14, 2:29 AM, "Milton L Mueller"
ma
At the Chicago meeting there was support for this policy but also calls for
simplifying and shortening it. This is the revised version.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1
Out of Region Use
Date: 21 July 2014
Problem statement:
Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out of region use
David
I don't think an intransigent attitude toward retaining needs testing is
justified by anything you have cited here or elsewhere. RIPE has basically
eliminated needs assessment, see this article for an assessment of the results:
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/06/20/baby-steps-and-bi
> -Original Message-
> Not precisely. For unless you are just commenting generally about an
> unconnected bunch of opinionating,
That is precisely what I was doing! ;-)
My mailbox was so full of that that I hadn't time to drill down to its origin,
and as you seem to have recognized by
This debate has descended into rather nasty and unconstructive name calling. So
if I am not mistaken with the attribution here, we have Woodcock calling
Huberman 'idiotic,' a devotee of Ayn Rand (how did she get in here?), the moral
equivalent of a slave trader, and a self-indulgent non-adult.
Owen,
> Given the number of sole-proprietors with very small budgets that I have
> obtained IP allocations for over the past several years, I think this is an
Are you doing this on a consulting basis? I am not accusing you of anything
here, just think some additional clarity and perhaps COI disc
Thanks, Bill,
Always nice to have some institiutional memory brought to bear.
> -Original Message-
>
> For example: http://archive.psg.com/970414.fncac.pdf
>
> quoting from page 9:
>
> "Current and old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy
> changes"
>
> This was
worst aspects of needs assessments. Let's see how they
fare in Chicago.
--MM
From: CJ Aronson [mailto:c...@daydream.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 10:37 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: John Curran; sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Diges
> -Original Message-
>
> To the extent that the community feels that registry policy should be
> applicable in general to the management of address blocks in the region,
> then the rights afforded to address holders must definitely be a subset of
> what most folks would consider "propert
-Original Message-
> With an exhausted IPv4 pool, there are no "pool limitations at the
> time of allocation" as there are no allocations. ARIN's role in IPv4 is
> primarily the third goal above: registry accuracy.
>
> That's why I advocate removing needs-basis from transfers in a pos
Niki:
For most economists and lawyers, the definition of a "property right" involves
the right to use, the right to exclude others from using, and the right to
transfer. As John's message makes clear, all those rights are present in the
number block lease you get from ARIN. So although the RSA m
Agree with Marla, support the proposal.
--MM
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Azinger, Marla
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:32 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan; arin-ppml@arin.net; 'arin-disc...@arin.net'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:10 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN and the Evolution of the IANA Functions
Dear Milton,
I do have just a few things to add. First, a correction.
I was premature in stating that the numbering community will be represented
-Original Message-
From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net]
> Your characterization: "eliminate the accountability"
> The actual statement: "ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms"
The end of the IANA contract WILL eliminate the accountability that comes with
NTIA as princi
I am at the ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore, where the "evolution of the IANA
functions" was a topic of heavy discussion and debate, which included Assistant
Secretary of Commerce Larry Strickling.
Because the proposed transition raises a number of issues that could affect
addressing, it's usefu
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 12:20 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)
Scott:
>> So are you in favor of or oppose
-Original Message-
>New policies, if they are to be adopted, ought to reinforce the historically
>permissive stance ARIN has taken.
Doesn't 2014-1 do that?
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public
-Original Message-
> Meanwhile, why are we still discussing IPv4 policy at all?
Because the transfer market for Ipv4 is going to be around for at least another
10 years.
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
t
ight need
them as much or more, but I do not see any support for that incentive in either
the letter or the spirit of ARIN policy.
--MM
-Original Message-
From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:01 PM
To: Bill Dar
David,
>Thank you, Milton, for bringing this thread up.
Likewise, happy to see you commenting on this draft policy.
While couched as opposition your post agrees with the problem statement that
"Earlier work on this issue has explored several options to restrict or
otherwise limit out of regio
cited for out of region use (verification issues).
You can see the proposal in full here:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html
Appreciate reading your comments about this.
Milton L Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
http
opposed, for reasons set out repeatedly in PPMs and AC meetings.
--MM
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] on behalf of ARIN
[i...@arin.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:34 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST
This policy took a winding path through the AC review process. In my view, the
actual substantive policy proposed is mostly supportable, though we need to
have a careful debate about the meaning of "plurality" and whether that is
necessary or not.
There are three other issues, none of which a
-Original Message-
>> As I understand it, ARIN 2013-4 is a rather bizarre attempt to indirectly
>> modify the content of an >>update to RFC 2050 in another venue. No such
>> modification is needed because goals and principles
>> are already fully embedded in the NRPM. Can someone tell
Well said, Bill. I haven't participated in this debate because I don't think it
is able to accomplish anything productive. The ARIN NPRM already contains a
section (4.1) called "General Principles" for IPv4, and for IPv6 sections 6.3
and 6.4 on "Goals" and "Policy Principles" respectively. I don
> -Original Message-
> Is requiring accurate documentation in the registry of what
> jurisdiction addresses are use in a reasonable start to such detente?
[Milton L Mueller] This is not what 2013-6 proposes to do.
> I don't think it is practical to limit where addres
vernmental lines. Oh wait,
they already proposed that:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file1141.pdf
Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
http://blog.internetgovernance.org
___
Tony
These are very valuable and insightful comments. I would take issue only with
one part of your conclusion:
> While the survey is a great
> starting point, it might make more sense to have Arin hire a professional
> survey developer to create the questions for an "unbiased about the
> outcome
balanced out with
the rest of the corpus principalus, I would posit
that to be a sign the principle might bear reconsidering
and potentially reclassifying or discarding.
So, yes to stewardship; no to simple balancing
and compromising; through dissent can come
strength and better clarity.
[Milton L
> -Original Message-
>
> Question 1 was structured to produce Yes answers
[Milton L Mueller] Yep. But it didn't succeed so well, did it?
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public
> -Original Message-
> I am going to differentiate between principles and practices.
[Milton L Mueller] Yay!
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@ar
> >>
> >> 1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on
> >> need (Conservation/Sustainability)?
> >
> > [Milton L Mueller] Chris, as you know, conservation needs to be
> detached from needs assessments. One can have efficient ut
> -Original Message-
>
> 1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
> (Conservation/Sustainability)?
[Milton L Mueller] Chris, as you know, conservation needs to be detached from
needs assessments. One can have efficient utilization and conserva
Certainly, considering a removal of justified need for transfers is a different
argument. Lets try to keep those discussions separate.
Yes. Yes. Yes. This is precisely the point I was trying to make in my previous
post. I agree, if ARIN somehow ends up with a replenished free pool via a
sudd
: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 11:27 AM
> To: 'Kevin Kargel'; arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> >
> -Original Message-
> I for one am a supporter of the needs basis. As I have said before, if we
> eliminate the needs basis then I want to be first in line to request
> everything
> that is left. I am sure there will be quite a queue.
This comment is an example of the strange illogic
75 matches
Mail list logo
