Re: [arin-ppml] NomCom misbehavior

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Just adding that it is not the first time this happens.

I am appalled by the NomCom’s behavior!

elvis

Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

> On Oct 9, 2021, at 14:37, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
> wrote:
> 
> Apologies for posting here, but since arin-discuss is dead and based on 
> John’s recent expansion of the scope
> of PPML, I think it is the most appropriate place to post.
> 
> As I understand it, the Nominating Committee has turned down several 
> candidates for BoT in the upcoming
> election, among them Ron Da Silva and Dan Alexander, both of who are clearly 
> qualified and legitimate
> candidates for the board.
> 
> For two open positions, the Nominating committee chose to select just three 
> candidates for the slate.
> 
> It is absurd to turn away qualified candidates and it is inappropriate for 
> the nominating committee to
> endeavor to deprive the membership a greater choice of candidates. In 
> essence, by limiting the slate
> to the minimum number of candidates (n+1 vs. open offices), the nominating 
> committee has assured
> that they are able to, in effect, appoint most of their chosen candidates to 
> the board while denying
> others the opportunity to compete absent the petition process.
> 
> As such, I encourage each and every voting representative seeing this message 
> to support the petitions
> for both Dan Alexander and Ron Da Silva.
> 
> Further, I hope the board will admonish the nominating committee for taking 
> this action and revise
> the nominating committee guidelines to prevent such in appropriate behavior 
> in the future.
> 
> Suggestions:
> 
>1.Nominating committee must recruit at least 2n candidates where n is 
> the number
>of seats available for a given election.
> 
>2.Nominating committee may not deny candidates without cause.
> 
>3.Nominating committee must provide an explanation for their denial to 
> each and
>every candidate denied. It is up to the candidate whether or not to 
> make that
>explanation public.
> 
>4.Nominating committee must provide the same explanations for any 
> denied candidates
>to the board for their consideration.
> 
>5.A simple majority of quorum vote of the board shall be sufficient to 
> place any
>denied candidate on the initial slate without requiring qualification 
> by petition.
> 
> Owen
> 
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Chris,

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 11:04, Chris Woodfield  wrote:
> 
> Don’t forget the the ultimate say does, in fact, lie with the community, in 
> that the members of the Board and the Advisory Council are elected by the 
> community.

Allow me to be skeptical about this statement too. I vaguely remember how a 
well respected board member was not ‘selected’ for candidacy for re-election 
and was not allowed to defend its seat because some group of people made a 
decision. This happened just a few years ago and I had quite a few chats with 
lots of community members that were outraged to see this is possible. It was 
during an ARIN Meeting in Vancouver, in 2018, if my memory serves me well.

> 
> While there’s always the potential for a cynical take on the community’s 
> ability to affect meaningful change when needed, I’d hope that any egregious 
> policy decisions made by these bodies - decisions that the community agrees 
> are not in line with their collective interests - would result in the Board 
> and/or AC members responsible for those decisions having a much more 
> difficult time with their future re-election campaigns than they would 
> otherwise.

PDP shouldn’t really work this way. Bottom-up either.

/elvis

> 
> -Chris
> 
>> On Sep 7, 2021, at 10:49 AM, Fernando Frediani  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Elvis
>> 
>> I have the same view as you do.
>> Despite this undertanding (and maybe the Board too - and correct me if I 
>> don't reproduce it accuratelly) I refuse the view that "PDP is a concession 
>> of the Board to the Community" and - this is what makes it even more 
>> controvertial - that 'this does not void ICP-2" due to historical reasons or 
>> whatever justification.
>> 
>> They are entiteled to their opinion but I do not believe that corrensponds 
>> to practical realitty.
>> 
>> I sincerelly hope that not only ARIN Board by any other RIR Board never void 
>> the bottom-up process and respect the ultimate power of community to choose 
>> how policies will be, not the Board unilaterally at their will.
>> 
>> Obviouslly this doesn't confuse with the prerrogative of the RIR Board to 
>> care about the organization protection and legal protection and I support 
>> that including the prerrogative of the Boards to ractify proposals that 
>> reached consensus.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Fernando
>> 
>>> On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, 14:10 Elvis Daniel Velea,  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 7, 2021, at 09:10, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> While the Board delegates the administration of policy development 
>>>>> routinely to the ARIN AC, but it retains ultimate authority commensurate 
>>>>> with the responsibility that they must bear for the organization.
>>>> 
>>>> This is a very useful clarification to have available for those who 
>>>> continue to argue that the community is the ultimate authority on policy 
>>>> matters. Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Very surprised to see John explain how the bottom-up process works (or not) 
>>> in ARIN and how much influence the ARIN Board has on policy.
>>> 
>>> I am also extremely surprised to see the difference in PDP between ARIN and 
>>> the rest of the RIRs as per John’s statement above.
>>> 
>>> Elvis
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> ARIN-PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> ___
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> ___
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi,

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 09:10, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
> wrote:
> 
>> While the Board delegates the administration of policy development routinely 
>> to the ARIN AC, but it retains ultimate authority commensurate with the 
>> responsibility that they must bear for the organization.
> 
> This is a very useful clarification to have available for those who continue 
> to argue that the community is the ultimate authority on policy matters. 
> Thank you.

Very surprised to see John explain how the bottom-up process works (or not) in 
ARIN and how much influence the ARIN Board has on policy.

I am also extremely surprised to see the difference in PDP between ARIN and the 
rest of the RIRs as per John’s statement above.

Elvis


___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

On 1/15/21 1:17 PM, Mike Burns wrote:



[...]


The Trustees have heard the arguments by now I am sure, and the 
support of the petition must be at or near the required 25 by now.


Unsolicited advice to new posters on how to run their networks and the 
need to use IPv6 are a waste of time, and are the correct way to keep 
the community tiny.


Regards,
Mike

PS If we have reached 25 petitions, please let us know. Somebody must 
be counting.



if not, count my +1 as well.

cheers,

elvis

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

I support the policy proposal as written.

regards,
elvis

On 5/5/16 6:45 PM, David Farmer wrote:

As shepherd for this policy I welcome any additional last call
feedback for this policy.  It is especially important to speak up if
you feel there are any issues remaining that need to be considered.
But, even if you simply support the policy as written that is
important and useful feedback as well.

The last call period formally continues through, Monday, May 9th, and
the AC will consider the feedback during its scheduled call on
Thursday, May 19th.

Thanks

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, ARIN  wrote:

The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 April 2016 and decided to
send the following to last call:

   Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization
requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will
expire on 9 May 2016. After last call the AC will conduct their
last call review.

The draft policy text is below and available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/

The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3
Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
Resource Policy:

ARIN 2015-3 contributes to fair and impartial number resource administration
by removing from the NRPM text that is operationally unrealistic for the
reasons discussed in the problem statement. This proposal is technically
sound, in that the removal of the text will more closely align with the way
staff applies the existing policy in relation to 8.3 transfers. There was
strong community support for the policy on PPML and at ARIN 36, which was
confirmed at ARIN 37. There was a suggestion to replace this text with an
alternate requirement. However, the community consensus was to move forward
with the removal alone.

The staff and legal review also suggested removing RFC2050 references and
pointed out that 4.2.3.6 has an additional 25% immediate use clause,
community feedback was to deal with those issues separately.

Problem Statement:

End-user policy is intended to provide end-users with a one year supply of
IP addresses. Qualification for a one-year supply requires the network
operator to utilize at least 25% of the requested addresses within 30 days.
This text is unrealistic and should be removed.

First, it often takes longer than 30 days to stage equipment and start
actually using the addresses.

Second, growth is often not that regimented; the forecast is to use X
addresses over the course of a year, not to use 25% of X within 30 days.

Third, this policy text applies to additional address space requests. It is
incompatible with the requirements of other additional address space request
justification which indicates that 80% utilization of existing space is
sufficient to justify new space. If a block is at 80%, then often (almost
always?) the remaining 80% will be used over the next 30 days and longer.
Therefore the operator cannot honestly state they will use 25% of the
ADDITIONAL space within 30 days of receiving it; they're still trying to use
their older block efficiently.

Fourth, in the face of ARIN exhaustion, some ISPs are starting to not give
out /24 (or larger) blocks. So the justification for the 25% rule that
previously existed (and in fact, applied for many years) is no longer
germane.

Policy statement:

Remove the 25% utilization criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3.

Resulting text:

4.3.3. Utilization rate

Utilization rate of address space is a key factor in justifying a new
assignment of IP address space. Requesters must show exactly how previous
address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details
to verify their one-year growth projection.

The basic criterion that must be met is a 50% utilization rate within one
year.

A greater utilization rate may be required based on individual network
requirements. Please refer to RFC 2050 for more information on utilization
guidelines.

Comments:

a.Timetable for implementation: Immediate

b.Anything else

#

ARIN STAFF ASSESSMENT

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3
Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy
Date of Assessment: 16 February 2016

___
1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This proposal would remove the 25% utilization (within 30 days of issuance)
criteria bullet point from NRPM 4.3.3.

___
2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments
This policy would more closely align with the way staff applies the existing
policy in relation to 8.3 transfers. Because there is no longer an IPv4 free
pool and many IPv4 requests are likely to be satisfied by 8.3 transfers, the
adoption of this policy should have no major 

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Owen,

On 25/09/15 20:24, Owen DeLong wrote:
Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How was 
RIPE-NCC accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to what 
extent was it improved as a result of this policy change. What 
mechanism was used to determine that the measured increase in accuracy 
was the result of the particular policy abandoning needs-based evaluation?


just have a look at the number of transfers pre-2013-03 and the number 
of transfers after the policy proposal was implemented.


Basically, transfers via the RIPE NCC (recorded in the registry) have 
become the standard for everyone in the RIPE region, financial artifices 
have not been used anymore (as far as I know) once the need-based 
barrier has been removed.


cheers,
elvis
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Owen,

On 25/09/15 21:56, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:23 , Elvis Daniel Velea <el...@velea.eu> wrote:

Hi Owen,

On 25/09/15 09:23, Owen DeLong wrote:

It’s not ARIN’s mission to prevent profits nor did I say it was.

My point is that Elvis support for removing policy is strongly influenced by 
the potential windfall he stands to reap while not actually providing
any internet services in the process if the policy is changed as he wishes.

Please stop implying what influences my beliefs. I doubt you can read my mind.

I already said it several times that regardless of the outcome, there are 
plenty of organizations that have already received 'pre-approvals' and helping 
at least those will fill up my plate.. What do you mean we do not provide an 
internet service? We offer various services, not just the brokerage part.

As yo pointed out, many folks make a profit on various INETERNET SERVICES. 
Elvis, OTOH is not in the internet services business. He’s strictly
an address broker.

What do you mean by 'not in the internet services business' ? I think you are 
starting to be rude and would like to ask you to back off a bit.
We offer various services to our customers: IP management, LIR management, 
audits, Sponsoring LIR services (RIPE Region), IPv6 migration support, etc…

Do you offer any services involving moving bits between your clients and other 
organizations?
so you are saying that only companies that move bits between 
customers/other organisations are in the internet service business?


what about the RIRs? or the I* organizations ? I doubt they move bits 
for customers.. are they also excluded from your list or they do offer 
internet services? if the latter, what is then the difference?




Or are you strictly in the address marketing/management business?

 From everything you have said to me, I’ve been led to believe the latter. If 
you actually sell access or transit services, hosting, or anything like that, 
then I stand corrected.
we are discussing a policy change on the ARIN PPML list, not on nanog... 
and I am not even sure why you keep talking about this.. It really does 
not matter what the company I work for does, we are discussing here as 
citizens interested in the policies.



It would be sort of like Realtors arguing against transfer taxes on real 
estate. An argument based solely in greed rather than any actual concern for 
the common good.

Again, you are just guessing why I am commenting on this policy proposal. As an 
ex-RIR employee, I've told you (and others) several times that I still want to 
do the right thing for the community. I have already made several policy 
proposals in the RIPE Region (one recently accepted by the community) and I am 
active in APNIC and now ARIN…

Fair enough, but I’d call it an educated guess based on conversations we’ve had.
I talk here in my name and not in the name of my company. Same as you 
and most of the people on this list.



Owen, last time we discussed you said that you understand the need of brokers 
and while a few years back you did not agree with us existing, now you are no 
longer against... I see personal attacks in the two e-mails you sent and I 
don't understand where these come from.

Not exactly.

I said I understand the needs of brokers, not that I saw a need for brokers. 
Understanding the needs of brokers does not imply a desire to accommodate them.
I did say that I am not opposed to brokers existing and I am not. However, I’m 
not in favor of supporting them to the detriment of the community, either.

In fact, I have worked with brokers to get IP addresses for organizations. I 
see no incompatibility between needs basis and brokers working above board.

Your repeated expressions of willingness to conduct transfers outside the 
system if you can’t do whatever you want within the system are where I take 
exception. These have been your own words even in this very thread.
I did not say that we will support transfers outside the system.. 
actually, this is our problem. Because we want to comply with the policy 
and because we do not close our eyes to potential customers violating 
the policies, we lose those potential customers.


I’m sorry you see those as personal attacks. What I am attacking is the idea of 
contorting policy to suit the profit motives of an ancillary industry to the 
detriment of those actually building and operating infrastructure.
I think you are looking at this from the wrong direction. I do want to 
have more customers and the removal of the needs based criteria will 
help. But you misunderstand the reasons behind it. I have repeated them 
several times already...


If a potential buyer has the money and wants to buy the resource (in 
order to use them, or keep them for a few years - maybe they want to 
make sure that they will never run out) they will buy them.. through 
financial artifices if they can not do it through the brokers and with 
ARIN's blessing.


It was never my 

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

One more thing regarding the moving bits businesses..

On 25/09/15 21:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
Do you offer any services involving moving bits between your clients 
and other organizations? Or are you strictly in the address 
marketing/management business? From everything you have said to me, 
I’ve been led to believe the latter. If you actually sell access or 
transit services, hosting, or anything like that, then I stand corrected.


the fact that service providers are willing to route blocks which are 
not reflected in the registry indicates (at some level) support for more 
transfer-friendly policies, even if they are not advocating for changes 
on this list...


my 2 cents,
elvis
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Owen,

On 25/09/15 09:23, Owen DeLong wrote:

It’s not ARIN’s mission to prevent profits nor did I say it was.

My point is that Elvis support for removing policy is strongly influenced by 
the potential windfall he stands to reap while not actually providing
any internet services in the process if the policy is changed as he wishes.
Please stop implying what influences my beliefs. I doubt you can read my 
mind.


I already said it several times that regardless of the outcome, there 
are plenty of organizations that have already received 'pre-approvals' 
and helping at least those will fill up my plate.. What do you mean we 
do not provide an internet service? We offer various services, not just 
the brokerage part.

As yo pointed out, many folks make a profit on various INETERNET SERVICES. 
Elvis, OTOH is not in the internet services business. He’s strictly
an address broker.
What do you mean by 'not in the internet services business' ? I think 
you are starting to be rude and would like to ask you to back off a bit.
We offer various services to our customers: IP management, LIR 
management, audits, Sponsoring LIR services (RIPE Region), IPv6 
migration support, etc...

It would be sort of like Realtors arguing against transfer taxes on real 
estate. An argument based solely in greed rather than any actual concern for 
the common good.
Again, you are just guessing why I am commenting on this policy 
proposal. As an ex-RIR employee, I've told you (and others) several 
times that I still want to do the right thing for the community. I have 
already made several policy proposals in the RIPE Region (one recently 
accepted by the community) and I am active in APNIC and now ARIN...


Owen, last time we discussed you said that you understand the need of 
brokers and while a few years back you did not agree with us existing, 
now you are no longer against... I see personal attacks in the two 
e-mails you sent and I don't understand where these come from.


Owen, please stop guessing what my business does and why I participate 
in the discussions. I doubt this is what an ARIN AC member should do..


regards,
Elvis

PS: I could have registered to the mailing list with my work e-mail 
address if all I wanted to do is to profit from my position on this (and 
other) policy proposals discussions. These messages are sent on my 
behalf and may or may not be the point of view of the company I work for


Owen


On Sep 24, 2015, at 13:53 , Steven Ryerse <srye...@eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

Many folks make a profit on various Internet services in this Region. ARIN was 
created to further the Internet and not stifle it.  Nowhere do I see that it is 
part of ARIN's mission to somehow prevent profits via policies. Appears to me 
to be all about the haves keeping the have nots from obtaining resources.  :-(

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
 Conquering Complex Networks℠

-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf 
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:37 PM
To: el...@velea.eu
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based 
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Of course your position wouldn’t have anything to do with the profits you stand 
to make from an unrestricted transfer market.

Owen


On Sep 24, 2015, at 13:12 , Elvis Daniel Velea <el...@velea.eu> wrote:

Hi Owen,

On 24/09/15 22:09, Owen DeLong wrote:

Short answer: NO

Longer answer:

Finance alone does not reflect all community values. Eliminating
needs-based evaluation for transfers will foster an environment open
to speculation and other artifice used to maximize the monetization of address 
resources without providing the benefit to the community of maximizing 
utilization.

The environment open to speculation already exists, a needs-based criteria will 
not stop the ones that want to speculate. Keeping needs-based criteria in 
policy will only drive (keep some of the) transfers underground (ie: futures 
contracts, all kind of financial artifices). I actually believe the needs-based 
criteria removal will benefit the community by eliminating a barrier in the 
correct registration of the transfers (resources) in the registry (and whois).

The allocation era has passed, ARIN should just be a shepherd and record the 
transfers (and do the allocation exercise twice per year, when the IANA 
allocates the few crumbs remaining). From my experience and observations, if 
someone needs the IP addresses and has the money to pay for them I am sure that 
they will not be stopped by ARIN's needs-base criteria...

In fact, I believe that eliminating needs-basis will likely cause
actual utilization to be reduced in the long run in favor of financial 
manipulation.

I dare

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Richard,

On 25/09/15 06:46, Richard J. Letts wrote:

b)
There is no definitive outcome from the policy change, which makes me feel that 
it's not worth changing -- the problem statement argument is weak at best.
the outcome is that everyone that will need IP addresses will be able to 
get them. Isn't that quite definitive and clear?


It is potentially enabling organizations with more money than need gain more 
resources, potentially at the expense of non-profit and educational 
organizations who might not be able to raise cash for additional IPv4 space [or 
equipment to support a transition to IPv6].
So, you think that in today's market the non-profit/educational 
organizations will have the chance at getting some of the IP space from 
the market? And if the needs-based barrier is removed, they will no 
longer have that chance?
Everyone knows that the IP address is now an asset and is worth a buck. 
Who do you think will say: I'll give it for free to this educational 
organization (because they have proven the need to ARIN) instead of 
giving it for money to this commercial entity (that may or may not have 
a demonstrated need need for it).


I think we need to wake up. Keeping needs-based criteria in the policy 
will only cause SOME transfers to be driven underground and block some 
others.

Changing policy just to (potentially) improve the accuracy of a database seems 
not worth the (potential) risk.
The change of the accuracy of the registry is already proven in the RIPE 
region. I would say it's not just potential, it is real and visible.


Richard

regards,
Elvis



From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net  on behalf of Dani 
Roisman 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:20 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based 
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

| Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:53:59 -0400
| From: ARIN 
| To: arin-ppml@arin.net
| Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
|   evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
| Message-ID: <56031167.1010...@arin.net>
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
|
| Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
| Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4
| transfers of IPv4 netblocks
|
| On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
| "ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3,
| and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy.
|
| Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at:
| https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html

Greetings,

There has been some stimulating dialog about the merits of 2015-9.  I'd like to 
ask that in addition to any overall support or lack thereof, you also review 
the policy language and comment specifically on the changes proposed:
a) For those of you generally in support of this effort, are there any 
refinements to the changes made which you think will improve this should these 
policy changes be implemented?
b) For those of you generally opposed to this effort, are there any adjustments 
to the policy changes which, if implemented, would gain your support?

--
Dani Roisman
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.


___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

+1

Keeping needs basis in the NRPM will only drive the transfers 
underground. Some are already using all kind of financial tricks 
(futures contracts, lease contracts, etc) and are waiting for the needs 
basis criteria to be removed from NRPM in order to register the 
transfers in the ARIN Registry.


The Registry/Whois will win most from the removal of needs basis from 
the NRPM and process streamlining.


regards,
elvis

On 24/09/15 22:36, Steven Ryerse wrote:

I couldn't agree more!

Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
  Conquering Complex Networks℠

-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf 
Of Mike Burns
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 3:35 PM
To: Leif Sawyer ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based 
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks


- Original Message -
From: "Leif Sawyer" 


Should ARIN begin the process of streamlining the IPv4 policy so that
it is geared more toward the transfer market, and remove "need" as a
criteria in certain sections of the NRPM to increase the database
accuracy?



Hi Leif,

Yes. The community distributed the addresses appropriately, IMO.
Now it's time to step back and let the market work to conserve addresses and 
bring them into their highest and best use.
And reap the rewards in increased Whois acccuracy, more efficient transfers, 
and less cost to the ARIN community.

Regards,
Mike Burns

___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public 
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.


___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi John,

On 24/09/15 23:16, John Curran wrote:

On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea <el...@velea.eu> wrote:

+1

Keeping needs basis in the NRPM will only drive the transfers underground. Some 
are already using all kind of financial tricks (futures contracts, lease 
contracts, etc) and are waiting for the needs basis criteria to be removed from 
NRPM in order to register the transfers in the ARIN Registry.

The Registry/Whois will win most from the removal of needs basis from the NRPM 
and process streamlining.

Elvis -

To be clear, there is nothing “improper” about a future or option contract 
if two
private parties decide to engage in such (and I can imagine cases where such
an arrangement might make sense regardless of state of IPv4 transfer 
policy.)

correct.


This does not detract from the your point that the usefulness of the 
registry is
maximum when the party actually using the address block is the registrant
(and hence transfer policies which even indirectly encourage other outcomes
reduce its functionality, e.g. for operations, etc.)
And I believe that some financial 'tricks' are used instead of just 
registration in the registry/whois.


There are even cases where loaning/leasing of address blocks may make sense;

that's true..

I believe your point is that we don’t want to see these sorts of 
arrangements appear
(in circumstances beyond their normal useful roles) as alternatives to 
transfers
simply as a result of transfer policy hurdles - is that correct?
You got my point. I would rather see needs-based criteria removed in 
place of having all kind of documents hidden in archives as alternative 
for the transfer.


Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
  

regards,
elvis
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Owen,

if someone needs an IPv4 transfer and wants to use our brokerage firm, 
believe me we will be happy to assist them and help them get what they 
need (regardless of whether the needs-based criteria is still in the 
policy or not). Off course, we will do everything to respect the 
policies of (all of) the RIRs while helping our customers get what they 
want.


An unrestricted transfer market may increase the number of transfers we 
broker - that's true, but in the end 'the money' (you call it profits) 
will be the same. The number of available (read: unused and ready to be 
transferred) IP addresses will not change, we (the brokers) will broker 
them regardless of who the buyer is. What will change is the correct 
registration (in place of the contracts hidden in a drawer in a lawyer's 
office).


There is almost a /12 unmet (read: justified) on the ARIN waiting list.. 
in 2.5 months. We won't probably be able to keep up with the number of 
companies receiving approvals from ARIN, so.. no I have worries about 
our 'profits'. What I worry about is that, maybe, those that have the 
funds will buy the resources and not keep a proper registration because 
either the policy is too restrictive to them, their employee has not 
succeeded in convincing the ARIN staff or their future usage plans were 
maybe not clear enough.


Again, from my experience (we've brokered more than a /11 in the 2 years 
since our company exists) if someone has the money for it and wants it, 
they will get it .


regards,
elvis

On 24/09/15 23:37, Owen DeLong wrote:

Of course your position wouldn’t have anything to do with the profits you stand 
to make from an unrestricted transfer market.

Owen


On Sep 24, 2015, at 13:12 , Elvis Daniel Velea <el...@velea.eu> wrote:

Hi Owen,

On 24/09/15 22:09, Owen DeLong wrote:

Short answer: NO

Longer answer:

Finance alone does not reflect all community values. Eliminating needs-based 
evaluation for transfers
will foster an environment open to speculation and other artifice used to 
maximize the monetization of
address resources without providing the benefit to the community of maximizing 
utilization.

The environment open to speculation already exists, a needs-based criteria will 
not stop the ones that want to speculate. Keeping needs-based criteria in 
policy will only drive (keep some of the) transfers underground (ie: futures 
contracts, all kind of financial artifices). I actually believe the needs-based 
criteria removal will benefit the community by eliminating a barrier in the 
correct registration of the transfers (resources) in the registry (and whois).

The allocation era has passed, ARIN should just be a shepherd and record the 
transfers (and do the allocation exercise twice per year, when the IANA 
allocates the few crumbs remaining). From my experience and observations, if 
someone needs the IP addresses and has the money to pay for them I am sure that 
they will not be stopped by ARIN's needs-base criteria...

In fact, I believe that eliminating needs-basis will likely cause actual 
utilization to be reduced in the
long run in favor of financial manipulation.

I dare to disagree. From where I am standing, the removal of needs-basis 
criteria from the RIPE Region has increased utilization of the resources 
transferred through the IPv4 marketplace.
Additionally, the removal of the needs-basis criteria has increased the number 
of transfers, showing that the marketplace works and is useful to hundreds (or 
even thousands) of companies from the region.

I am not saying that the ARIN community should copy what the RIPE community has 
done. I am just saying that if something is working and it's usability is 
proven, it is rather strange to see some saying the opposite as an argument 
against the removal of the needs-based criteria.

Owen

cheers,
elvis

On Sep 24, 2015, at 11:55 , Leif Sawyer <lsaw...@gci.com> wrote:

Now that we've reached the magic ZERO in the free pool, what does the community
think about this new draft policy?

Should ARIN begin the process of streamlining the IPv4 policy so that it is
geared more toward the transfer market, and remove "need" as a criteria in
certain sections of the NRPM to increase the database accuracy?


-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf 
Of ARIN
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:54 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based 
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of 
IPv4 netblocks

On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 
transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/p

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Owen,

On 24/09/15 22:09, Owen DeLong wrote:

Short answer: NO

Longer answer:

Finance alone does not reflect all community values. Eliminating needs-based 
evaluation for transfers
will foster an environment open to speculation and other artifice used to 
maximize the monetization of
address resources without providing the benefit to the community of maximizing 
utilization.
The environment open to speculation already exists, a needs-based 
criteria will not stop the ones that want to speculate. Keeping 
needs-based criteria in policy will only drive (keep some of the) 
transfers underground (ie: futures contracts, all kind of financial 
artifices). I actually believe the needs-based criteria removal will 
benefit the community by eliminating a barrier in the correct 
registration of the transfers (resources) in the registry (and whois).


The allocation era has passed, ARIN should just be a shepherd and record 
the transfers (and do the allocation exercise twice per year, when the 
IANA allocates the few crumbs remaining). From my experience and 
observations, if someone needs the IP addresses and has the money to pay 
for them I am sure that they will not be stopped by ARIN's needs-base 
criteria...

In fact, I believe that eliminating needs-basis will likely cause actual 
utilization to be reduced in the
long run in favor of financial manipulation.
I dare to disagree. From where I am standing, the removal of needs-basis 
criteria from the RIPE Region has increased utilization of the resources 
transferred through the IPv4 marketplace.
Additionally, the removal of the needs-basis criteria has increased the 
number of transfers, showing that the marketplace works and is useful to 
hundreds (or even thousands) of companies from the region.


I am not saying that the ARIN community should copy what the RIPE 
community has done. I am just saying that if something is working and 
it's usability is proven, it is rather strange to see some saying the 
opposite as an argument against the removal of the needs-based criteria.


Owen

cheers,
elvis



On Sep 24, 2015, at 11:55 , Leif Sawyer  wrote:

Now that we've reached the magic ZERO in the free pool, what does the community
think about this new draft policy?

Should ARIN begin the process of streamlining the IPv4 policy so that it is
geared more toward the transfer market, and remove "need" as a criteria in
certain sections of the NRPM to increase the database accuracy?


-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf 
Of ARIN
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:54 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based 
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of 
IPv4 netblocks

On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 
transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html

You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft Policy 
2015-9 on the Public Policy Mailing List.

The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this 
draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as 
stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:

* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community

The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##

Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of 
IPv4 netblocks

Date: 23 September 2015

Problem statement:

The current policies in NRPM sections 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 regarding transfer of 
IPv4 netblocks from one organization to another are currently a hindrance in 
ensuring database accuracy. In practice, ARIN staff are utilizing those polices 
to refuse to complete database updates which would reflect an accurate transfer 
of control / utilization of netblocks in cases where ARIN doesn't agree that 
the recipient organization has need, or more often where the recipient 
organization bypasses the ARIN registry entirely in order to secure the needed 
IPv4 netblocks in a more timely fashion directly from the current holder.
Additionally, the 8.1 introduction section includes a perceived "threat"
of reclaim which serves as a hindrance to long-term resource holders 
approaching ARIN with database updates when transferring resources. The 

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use - updated legal assessment

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi,

after carefully reading the proposed text and after the discussion we 
had yesterday, I support the proposal.


I know I objected, initially, at the microphone during yesterday's 
session but now I understand that my objection was either based on 
previous versions of this proposal or on suggestions made by others that 
made me believe otherwise.


I believe that there is no way for the ARIN Staff to actually verify 
where an IP address is used and not implementing such a proposal as 
policy means that companies will need to use misleading justification in 
order to request and obtain what they need.
For example, companies will have to say that they will announce the 
aggregate from an ARIN AS even though the more specifics (and therefore 
the sites receiving the traffic) could most be out of region. 
Additionally, companies requesting addresses for a disconnected POP (out 
of region) may be refused while if they would say that the POP is part 
of a global infrastructure (with an aggregate announced from ARIN) they 
will probably get the requested space.


Currently we are at .24 of a /8 available in the free pool and it makes 
no sense to continue to be strict or add more barriers in how companies 
decide to use the IP addresses allocated to them. Organizations that 
decide to be ARIN members (no matter what their reasoning is) as long as 
these organizations are dully incorporated and have a physical presence 
in ARIN should be allowed to use address space registered in the ARIN 
registry and database for all of their in (or out of) region needs.


Lastly, I have been talking to various people during the breaks and I 
understand that it will be in the interest of those parties if they 
could have only one account (membership) to worry about and if they 
could aggregate all of their resources in that one account.
Although, to be fair, I would not understand why someone would actually 
do that in ARIN because holding a RIPE NCC membership account comes with 
(maybe) a cheaper fee and freedom to request/receive/transfer anything 
(including the no needs based requirements).


my 2 cents,
Elvis

On 14/04/15 08:06, ARIN wrote:
There was a request to repost the updated legal assessment of 2014-1 
which is going to be discussed here at ARIN 35 this morning.


The updated legal assessment is included in the Draft Policy text 
below and can be found at:


https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1
Out of Region Use

Date: 24 December 2014

AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number 
Resource Policy:


This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource 
administration by clearing up a significant ambiguity in policy and 
practice. This proposal is technically sound, as no technical issues 
are raised by permitting a single network operator to use resources 
from one RIR in any region. This proposal is supported by the 
community. Permitting out of region use allows operators with 
facilities spanning more than one region to obtain resources in the 
most direct and convenient way, and to utilize their numbers more 
flexibly and efficiently. The concerns of law enforcement and staff 
raised by the first staff and legal assessment have been mitigated by 
the latest amendments.


Problem statement:

Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out or 
region use of ARIN registered resources. This has created confusion 
and controversy within the ARIN community for some time. Earlier work 
on this issue has explored several options to restrict or otherwise 
limit out of region use. None of these options have gained consensus 
within the community. The next logical option is a proposal that 
clearly permits out of region use while addressing some of the 
concerns expressed about unlimited openness to out of region use.


Policy statement:

Create new Section X:

ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. 
Out of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for 
additional number resources if the applicant is currently using at 
least the equivalent of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within 
the ARIN service region, respectively.


The services and facilities used to justify the need for ARIN 
resources that will be used out of region cannot also be used to 
justify resource requests from another RIR. When a request for 
resources from ARIN is justified by need located within another RIR’s 
service region, the officer of the applicant must attest that the same 
services and facilities have not been used as the basis for a resource 
request in the other region(s). ARIN reserves the right to request a 
listing of all the applicant's number holdings in the region(s) of 
proposed use, but this should happen only when there are significant 
reasons to suspect duplicate requests.