Hi folks, Trying to do a temperature check here. If you're following this thread, please indicate whether you support or oppose this draft policy.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:42 AM David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM Mueller, Milton L <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> OK, I’ve read it, and here is my reaction: >> >> >> >> This policy requires legal comment. ARIN’s Articles and Bylaws do not >> specifically prohibit ARIN from monetizing returned or revoked resources by >> selling those resources into the transfer market >> >> >> >> So point #1 is that this proposed policy does not violate any articles or >> bylaws. >> >> >> >> Today, ARIN does not financially benefit in any material way from such >> revocations. Adoption of this policy would for the first time allow the >> party in a contested revocation situation to argue that ARIN seeks to >> financially benefit. Avoiding that concern is also significant. >> >> >> >> I am totally unimpressed with this argument. If ARIN revokes addresses >> for nonpayment it is financially benefiting from the revocation is it not? >> It is basically taking them back because it is not getting paid. >> >> >> >> If ARIN “gets paid” by selling the numbers into the transfer market what >> is the difference exactly? >> > > Referring to the waiting list policy, the Draft Policy says, "this policy > provides valuable number resources essentially for free". > > Yes, ARIN currently financially benefits, but currently, that benefit is > at a level of cost recovery, "essentially for free" as stated above. > Whereas, if ARIN were to dispose of resources using the market, the level > of financial benefit is likely to be orders of magnitude larger. > Furthermore, if this wasn't the case, then the impact on the market and the > potential for fraud supposedly created by the waiting list, that the draft > policy proposes to mitigate, wouldn't exist in the first place. > > In short, "what is the difference", probably, several orders of magnitude > in the level of financial benefit involved. Where the financial motivations > from simple "cost recovery" can probably be summarily dismissed by the > court. Whereas the potential financial motivations, that one might even > call a windfall, from market-based transactions probably at least needs to > be examined and evaluated by the court, and probably wouldn't be summarily > dismissed. The outcome of the two situations might be the same in the end, > but the level of effort involved defending and the level of risk of an > adverse ruling, are not the same at all. > > More generally, ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful and > counter to its overall mission, but doesn't directly violate its Articles > and Bylaws. > > That said that doesn't mean ARIN can't implement the policy, but these > risks need to be evaluated when compared to other alternatives being > considered, along with the possible benefits this policy could have as well. > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
