"Ignoring a request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of the registry." Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.)>>>
Think you are correct....but, it is ever ignored? RD On Jun 3, 2015 11:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (Adam Thompson) > 2. Re: Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) > (David Conrad) > 3. Re: Registry functioning (Matthew Kaufman) > 4. Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2 (Matthew Kaufman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:06:11 -0500 > From: Adam Thompson <[email protected]> > To: William Herrin <[email protected]>,Seth Johnson > <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] List" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Also, the Canadian province of Quebec has civil law based on French civil > law, not English like the rest of Canada. Considering that nearly half of > all major Canadian corporations have their headquarters there... I don't > have to draw that picture, I think. IIRC, there's no (e.g.) adverse > possession concept, among other things. IANAL, can't explain all the > differences. > -Adam > > On June 3, 2015 5:38:08 PM CDT, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson <[email protected]> > >wrote: > >> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as > >> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright. > > > >Hi Seth, > > > >IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or > >trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any kind of > >*intellectual* property whose existence derives from statute and, in > >the U.S., from the Constitution itself. > > > >I suspect they're Common Law *Intangible* Property which is something > >else entirely. At least they are in common law jurisdictions which > >includes all of the U.S. and Canada and if I'm not mistaken everywhere > >else in the ARIN region as well. > > > >Much of Europe operates on Roman Civil Law rather than English Common > >Law. The legal foundations over there are so different I couldn't > >begin to speculate how IP addresses fit. > > > >Regards, > >Bill Herrin > > > > > >-- > >William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > >Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >_______________________________________________ > >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. > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/9a6751a5/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:29:49 -0700 > From: David Conrad <[email protected]> > To: John Curran <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML > 2015-2) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > John, > > >> If the community defines a policy that violates the trust the community > has placed in ARIN, then I definitely am advocating that ARIN not follow > that policy (community defined or not). For example, if the community > defines a policy that requires ARIN to (say) "confiscate" IPv4 addresses > from AfriNIC, then yes, I would advocate ARIN not follow the > community-developed policy. Would you, as ARIN's CEO, say that policy must > be followed? > > > > In our particular policy development process, there is a specific check > where the Board > > confirms that the policy advances ARIN's mission, does not create > unreasonable fiduciary > > or liability risk, is be consistent with ARIN's Articles of > Incorporation, Bylaws, and all > > applicable laws and regulations. > > Ironically, I had written a sentence that said "Please don't say 'our > policy process wouldn't allow something like that' -- this is a > hypothetical intended to be something easily identifiable as just wrong.", > but deleted it as I felt it was obvious and didn't need to be said. > > > Ergo, I would hope that a policy that violates the ARIN?s mission > (including the trust of the community) would not be ratified > > And my point has been that policies that damage the registration database > are in violation of the mission of any of the Regional Internet Registries > and should not be proposed, accepted, or ratified. > > >> However, as you may have noted, I strongly believe that _if those > transfers still occur despite ARIN policy, the registry must still > accurately reflect that transfer_. > > > > Okay, I think I see the area of disconnect, and it is with respect to > the above point. > > > > Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be > updated if address > > holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an > agreement pay the > > transfer fee, etc?) > > > > Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow > effectively > > ?possession? of the address block moves to another party despite lack of > transfer, > > that the registry has to eventually reflect reality? > > I'm not sure I see the the distinction you're making between the two. My > opinion on whether ARIN should deny (presumably out of policy) transfers is > not particularly relevant. Ignoring that, my answer to both would be 'yes'. > > Simply, I believe the registry needs to reflect reality as accurately as > possible. As I've said before, the point of the registry is help ensure > uniqueness and to facilitate the identification of contacts to support > network operations, help track down sources of abuse, etc. Ignoring a > request by a seller of address space to update the contact information to > that of a buyer means the registry will no longer reflect reality, thereby > defeating the point of the registry. > > Regards, > -drc > (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.) > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 496 bytes > Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/b07a9785/attachment-0001.bin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:31:38 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> > To: John Curran <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > On 6/3/2015 3:06 PM, John Curran wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> ... > >> You could certainly argue (and I might) that the records of legacy > >> assignments were in fact entrusted to ARIN to keep, and keep updated > >> *whether or not the community drafted policy that said such updates > >> were disallowed* > > > > Noting just one of the significant problems with that argument being > > that at the time > > of ARIN?s formation, the actual applicable registry policy was RFC > > 2050 (having been > > finished just a year earlier with folks like David Conrad and Jon > > Postel as authors) - > > And strangely after many legacy addresses had already been allocated. > > > it states that those obtaining addresses via transfer must "meet the > > same criteria as > > if they were requesting an IP address directly from the Internet > > Registry." > > Yes, the word "transfer" appears exactly once, and undefined, in RFC2050. > > The same RFC says that one of the three goals is to "document address > space allocation and assignment" - as it says "this is necessary to > ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble > shooting at all levels". It is this latter goal that will no longer be > met if organizations are forced to "transfer" without "transferring". > > > > > I.E., If we were maintain the exact status quo that such parties had > > prior to ARIN?s > > formation, recognized ARIN is entrusted to maintain that, then folks > > probably would > > not like the result - today?s transfer policy is more lenient than the > > transfer policy at > > that point in time. > > > > That's one possible conclusion. > > > (Thank an ARIN Advisory Council member when you next see them for all > > of their > > efforts getting useful transfer policy in the Number Resource Policy > > Manual! :-) > > > > We'll see. > > Matthew Kaufman > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/343a9845/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:37:07 -0700 > From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]> > To: Jason Schiller <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 6/3/2015 9:19 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > > There are two classes of address users on the Internet. > > > > 1. Those whose need for IP addresses does not grow > > > > 2. Those whose need for IP addresses continues to grow > > > > In the case of the first camp, there is no competitive disadvantage if > > someone else buys all the > > available IPv4 addresses. > > > > In the case of the second camp, if your organization can buy enough > > IPv4 addresses to make it > > through until the date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, or at > > least have a longer time > > horizon of addresses than your competitors then there is no business > > impact of running out > > of IPv4. > > > > On the other hand if you don't have enough IPv4 addresses to make it > > through until the > > date when wide spread IPv6 adoption occurs, and you run out before > > your competitors > > you risk losing growth going forward if there is IPv4-only content > > that your transit customers > > desire, or if there is an IPv4-only customer base your service want to > > serve. > > > > > > You don't need an unlimited supply, you only need either enough to get > > you through transition > > or more than your competitor (which ever is less). > > > > > > I don't think it is safe to assume that all companies who need > > addresses for growth have already > > secured enough to get them through transition. (If that was the case > > we wouldn't be having this > > discussion.) > > > > Certainly some organizations have decided not to complete below board > > transfers that they cannot > > currently justify under ARIN policy. Certainly some have decided not > > to secure a future in IPv4 > > addresses because the risk is too high. Certainly some have limited > > their activities because of > > the level of risk, lack of transparency in pricing, uncertainty about > > IPv6 adoption time lines, > > uncertainty about the customer measurable impact of CGN, and a dozen > > other things. > > > > > > Nor do I think it is safe to assume that all the IPv4 addresses that > > could be made available have > > already been made available. > > > > > > Given that it is likely that there are organization that have not > > secured enough IPv4 addresses > > to get them through wide spread IPv6 adoption. > > > > Given that it is likely that there are still more IPv4 addresses > > available on the market for the > > right price. > > > > Given that there is always the possibility that IPv4 addresses could > > be returned and made > > available through the current mechanisms. > > > > Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of > > below board transfers > > and futures for organizations that desire more addresses than they can > > justify for the > > next two years growth thereby supporting and encouraging the behavior > > where > > organizations who are willing to spend more cash now get preferential > > access to IPv4 > > addresses for potential future need over organizations that need > > addresses now > > (or in the next two year time horizon)? > > > > > > Do you believe that allowing the transfers proposed in 2015-2 would > significantly do what you say is good for the community above? > > Matthew Kaufman > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 120, Issue 28 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
