On 6/23/2015 4:16 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6
Transfers and Multi-national Networks
OPPOSED.
Noted. Can you read over my comments below, and then note why you think
it's a bad idea to ignore the geographic location where an organization is
utilizing its ARIN-registered addresses when evaluating transfer requests?
I'm hoping to hear the consequentialist argument behind your position,
independent of the appeal to authority (of the PDP) that you gave below.
Hi Scott,
Sure.
It grants large, multinational corporations unhindered access to IP
addresses for worldwide use.
As opposed to now, where large multinational corporation have unhindered
access to IP addresses that they use worldwide? (Many of whom are using
these addresses to allow small companies to deploy services all over the
world, even)
We could just ask large multinational corporations to spend a little
more on lawyer to create more subsidiaries and/or just buy up the right
to use address space without bothering to update the registry, if that
would make you happier.
Such addresses are denied to smaller
organizations in the same localities who can't claim an ARIN-region
presence.
Such addresses are about to be denied to anyone who doesn't have cash to
buy them (except perhaps, for a few more months, in Africa). Meanwhile,
there's lots of addresses available on the transfer market in these
other regions that they can access. What's the problem exactly?
The addresses are also rendered less accessible to
organizations solely within the ARIN region who can't support a
purchase with profit from a region where addresses are in higher
demand. It's a cross-subsidy (one source and consequence of monopoly
power) for organizations many of whom are already close enough to
being monopolies as makes no difference.
All this says is that long before we ran out of addresses we should have
stopped having them be regional. There's a whole lot of legitimate
reasons for entities, small and large, to expect to be able to portably
use their address space anywhere in the world... especially if they've
paid a bunch of real cash for it, as will be happening.
Bottom line: it's grossly unfair to all of us who aren't large
multinational corporations.
Everything is unfair to people who don't have the cash to buy address
space inside or outside their region. Those who can afford it will do
whatever other steps are needed (skipping registration, forming
subsidiaries) because now, and in the future, addresses themselves will
cost enough that such things are a tiny fraction of the transaction cost.
Matthew Kaufman
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
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.
