All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.
What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum
allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since ARIN
was chartered were denied because of needs policy.
I don’t know what that number is but if it is greater than zero, it shouldn’t
have happened! ARIN’s Mission is to Advance the Internet, not to stifle it.
If it is not OK to deny the Minimum domain (available) name to an Org, then it
isn’t OK to deny an Org the Minimum IP allocation. They are both Internet
resources.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
[Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks,
Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Internet Fairness
I'm sorry, but your argument is utterly specious.
First, the community includes ANYONE who chooses to participate and all comers
participate on an equal footing.
The Small ORG cannot possibly have been shut out because there are simply far
too many small and x-small orgs that have address space from ARIN for that to
be a viable statement.
To wit:
https://www.arin.net/knowledge/statistics/historical.html
Shows that there are a total of 1,886 organizations that received addresses
from ARIN in 2006-2007 (sorry, I don't know why more current data is not
available there). Of those, 1029 were small and 777 were x-small. That's 1806
of 1886 organizations. Only 80 large and x-large organizations.
If each of those 1806 organizations were to vote in the next three election
cycles, they could completely replace the board and the AC.
If they were to actively participate in the PDP, they would have overwhelming
majority and be able to strongly drive consensus in any direction they wanted.
Yes, decisions are made by those who choose to participate. Just as in all
other aspects of life, there is little value or credence given to those who
stand on the sidelines and complain about being on the sidelines. I realize you
aren't still standing on the sidelines, but you're still complaining about
everyone else being "SHUT OUT" when the reality is that all they would have to
do to change that is choose to participate.
The words "SHUT OUT" simply don't apply because their participation would be
welcome, even encouraged just as yours has been.
As to your statements about the shepherd's handling of your policy, I'll leave
that between you, the AC chair, and the shepherds. If it is as you describe,
that doesn't sound right to me. Did you consider availing yourself of the
petition process?
I admit I did vote to abandon your policy. I also commented publicly on it and
we discussed my opposition, so I don't think it came as any sort of surprise to
you. The dates of the AC conference calls are public information and each item
on our docket is discussed and can be subject to motion (and vote) at each of
those calls. Your policy also received substantial negative feedback and very
little support on the mailing list.
Finally, I simply don't see how a small org can be "SHUT OUT" when current
policy allows any organization that can show utilization of 128 host addresses
within 30 days to get an IPv4 allocation or assignment. The multihoming
requirements have been removed. The bar has been lowered to a /24 for all
minima. If your organization is smaller than that, then even if we were to
grant a "right-sized" assignment, you wouldn't be able to get it routed anyway,
so I'm not sure what you think the point would be.
Owen
On Dec 16, 2014, at 18:40 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I would point out that I submitted proposal 2014-18 which would have removed
needs testing only on the minimum sized allocations – so yes I am trying to fix
it at the low end. I think the Needs testing needs to be scrapped altogether
as was done in the Europe region in favor of right size testing but that isn’t
the battle I’m trying to fight.
A more pointed example of what I find wrong with needs testing rather than
right sizing allocations per the size of the org and their network would be
this:
A group of folks who all have one or more .com domain name allocation(s) and
are all running one or more web sites using those allocations on the Internet
gets together to form a “Community” to Advance the use of the Internet. At a
particular point in time the various opinions of the members of this community
aggregate their then current opinions and Best Practices on how .com domains
should be managed and allocated, and a set of .com domain allocation policies
are formed. Of course since the policies are essentially an aggregate of the
opinions of the members of that community at that time - they are arbitrary -
and hopefully but there is no guarantee, that there has been wisdom and
fairness built into these policies. As time goes on more opinions from this
Community are aggregated and the .com domain policies are modified and
hopefully improved but of course there is no guarantee of that since they are
an aggregated arbitrary collection of hopefully best practice opinions formed
into policies. One day a very small org decides it is in their best interest
to apply for an allocation for one domain name so they can have a web site.
They are willing to pay the fee for it and they check the registry database and
find that abc123doreme.com<http://abc123doreme.com/> has not been allocated to
anyone - and so they apply to have it allocated to them. Unfortunately for
that small org, the policies have been modified over time and based on applying
the then current policies (which are and always will be arbitrary), the request
for that one unallocated domain name is rejected per current Policy. Of course
the effect of this rejected allocation request is that this small org can NOT
bring up their web site using the denied domain name. Even though it may or
may not have been the intent of this .com domain “Community” to shut out the
small Org from using the Internet in the way they felt was in their best
Interest, THE SMALL ORG HAS BEEN SHUT OUT BY THIS .COM ALLOCATION “COMMUNITY”
via policies)! This small Org doesn’t think it is fair that the others got a
.com allocation - and there is one available - and they still can’t get even
ONE! Many of these folks who now have one or many .com allocation(s) would not
be able to get their existing .com allocation(s) today under the current .com
allocation policies as currently defined by this .com allocation Community.
This small Org didn’t apply for many .com domain names – they applied for the
Minimum of one of them. And of course they are correct – the polices the .com
allocation Community aggregated did in fact shut out this one small Org from
bringing up their valued web site because they were denied the resources
required to do so by the only official “Community” in their region that can
give them approval. Worse yet other small Orgs continue to get denied by the
current policies. Instead of the Internet being Advanced by the Community’s
Policies which of course was originally put in the Mission Statement so that
everyone would know their Mission, application of the Policies has done the
exact opposite and this small Org and others who have been denied have suffered.
I know that at least some Members of this ARIN region Community wish I would
stop badgering this community about the unfairness of how policies are applied
to small Orgs, but I will NEVER stop complaining as long as I can breathe and
type, until the aggregate opinions of the ARIN community come together to right
this wrong.
I tried to submit a simple policy change in an attempt to use the current
system of policies to hopefully fix this. I asked members of this community if
they might have any changes to my proposed language to improve the proposed
policy to try and fix this. But in the end my policy proposal was voted down
by the AC without even one email from the assigned Shepard(s) telling me a vote
was even scheduled - and without checking to see if I might have any additional
input for them to consider before they voted. What a system!
Are there not any members of good will in the ARIN community who are willing to
band together to finally fix this in a responsible way? Community Members?
The Board? ARIN Management? Anyone out there?
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
<image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Use
Then your issue is with how needs basis was being applied to IPv4 3 years ago
(and perhaps you also have issues with how it is currently being applied),
rather than needs basis in general.
Thus, your continued railing against all needs testing distracts from rather
than enabling work towards an improvement to IPv4 needs basis that might
resolve your issue. Arguing to eliminate needs testing creates a binary
argument where those of us who believe needs testing is essential to good
stewardship vs. those who want to eliminate it altogether.
On the other hand, working towards a relaxed set of needs tests that meet the
needs of more of the community is something I think most of the community would
get behind. Previous experience has shown this to be generally true.
Owen
On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:10 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
My experience was that I applied to ARIN for a /32 IPv6 block, a /22 IPv4 block
(the minimum at the time), and an ASN number. The online application asked me
some questions which I answered. Once it was processed I was notified that the
IPv6 block and the ASN number were allocated to me, and the IPv4 block
allocation was denied. This was about 3 years ago and at the time I thought
the questions I was asked were reasonable. I don’t recall having to provide
anything else except maybe a bill from my upstream provider.
I don’t have an issue with asking an applicant some basic questions but I have
a strong issue with using the answers to those questions to deny an applicant
the minimum block size. Regardless of the original intent, the effect is the
haves keeping the have nots from getting resources and this falls squarely on
small organizations. My opinion.
Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax
<image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:08 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
My point is that even before that discussion, there was and always has been
needs testing for IPv6.
Your claim that what they were advocating for is something new, as if IPv6
wasn't already subject to needs testing is specious.
As such, I'm not sure what would cause you to want to scream.
Owen
On Dec 15, 2014, at 14:21 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
No, my request for a IPv6 /32 was fulfilled by ARIN. My IPv6 comment below was
concerning discussion of a policy proposal for a past proposal.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
<image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:14 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Kevin Kargel; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
We have always had and still do have needs testing on all IPv6 allocations and
assignments.
Do you know anyone who is having trouble getting the IPv6 space that they need?
Owen
On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:49 , Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I saw folks in this Community when discussing a policy proposal earlier this
year – advocating for needs testing on all IPv6 allocations. I wanted to scream
when I read it!
As far as the Internet being different today, ARINs Mission doesn’t go out the
window because of Internet changes.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
<image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:12 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
The internet is a different place now and things change and evolve over time.
If a modern day entrepreneur needed IP space they would have little or no
problem finding all the IPv6 space they need at little or no cost and with
virtually no trouble.
When Jobs and Wozniak were starting up IPV4 was a different animal.
Kevin
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:16 AM
To: Bill Darte
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
By that definition, I wonder if Jobs and Wozniak needed IP resources today for
their garage - could they get them? Whether you like what they did or not they
certainly have advanced the Internet. And if John and Sue are working in their
garage today and need a /24 or a /22 from ARIN to further the Internet, can
they get them? With today’s policies – probably not as they might not have a
business plan yet, or signed contract with contractors, or gotten their funding
- or any other measure of need that is currently indoctrinated in policy. What
a shame!
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
<image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: Bill Darte [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 6:10 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Jo Rhett; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
Steven Ryerse said:
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing
the Internet. Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org
who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from
getting resources? How does that advance the Internet?
The community through ARIN is ensuring that the distribution of v4 IP addresses
are according to its policies which have been and should continue to be
needs-based..IMO. They are not 'caught up' in the sense that they cannot
proceed...ndeed, they are doing the precise business that policy and its
mission calls for. That some orgs that cannot meet the needs hurdle are
denied...does not mean that others who truly have a need are not serviced.
Those with clear need advance the Internet and do so demonstrably...whereas
those without a demonstrable need MAY advance the Internet as well, but its a
greater risk to the community and one which the community has chosen to forgo.
Bill Darte
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Though it has been a few months since I made those comments, I appreciate your
feedback. Your description of "walk away with someone else’s belongings" seems
to indicate that somehow the use of the Internet and the IP addresses that make
the use of the Internet possible, is owned by ARIN or this Community or maybe
ARIN and this Community.
I find that line of thinking about as far as one can get from the spirit of Jon
Postel and the way he went about advancing the Internet. When I read the
original Mission Statement for ARIN or even the current one, I don't see that
"needs" are more important than the actual mission of advancement and
allocation. Good stewardship should be practiced but NOT to the detriment of
the mission of advancement and allocation.
In my opinion this community is so caught up in making sure needs based
policies are followed, that it has lost sight of the real mission of advancing
the Internet. Regardless of your personal definition of need, why is some org
who doesn't have a need (as currently defined by policy) now precluded from
getting resources? How does that advance the Internet? I never met Jon Postel
but from what I've heard about him, I suspect he would frown on some of the
current policies regarding needs. My comments below and others I have made are
intended to try to bring some balance into the discussion and my hope is that
some day in the near future that will happen. I certainly don't desire there
be no rules at all but the very loose rules followed by Jon Postel worked
pretty well advancing the Internet. I think we could loosen the current
policies like has been done in other regions and it would have a positive
outcome. My two cents.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
www.eclipse-networks.com<http://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
770.656.1460<tel:770.656.1460> - Cell
770.399.9099<tel:770.399.9099>- Office
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rhett
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:17 AM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use
On Oct 27, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Steven Ryerse
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> If in the spirit of trying to prevent fraud non-fraudulent requests get
> rejected, then Arin's mission stops being fulfilled. I think it is important
> to make sure the mission is respected first and stopping fraud second or
> third or fifth or whatever. We could stop all fraud by stopping all
> allocations but of course that makes no sense. I would also point out that
> even when fraud happens Arin's Mission is still being fulfilled.
I completely disagree. There are dozens if not hundreds of people with
non-fraudulent requests who get denied for insufficient justification. That is
ARIN doing their job successfully in my mind. If widespread fraud occurs and
ARIN does not take action, then I feel strongly that ARIN would not be doing
their job.
> Of course maybe if the needs tests were loosened fraud would be significantly
> reduced as there would be no need to submit fraudulent requests.
Do you mean that if it were permissible to walk away with someone else’s
belongings, then theft would no longer occur? Your statement is true without
making any sense at all.
> I'm sure an org willing to submit a fraudulent request would tell you that
> they do have a need but they may not happen to meet the current arbitrary
> (and they are arbitrary) policy.
I disagree completely. ARIN’s role is to satisfy needs-based requests.
Exercising judgement of whether a need is realistic is doing their job.
The only thing arbitrary here is your desire for there to be no rules at all.
Deeply amusing, but not helpful for realistic policy.
--
Jo Rhett
+1 (415) 999-1798<tel:%2B1%20%28415%29%20999-1798>
Skype: jorhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
