Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:35 AM, Rudolph Daniel wrote: > > Question: how often does Arin staff encounter this anomaly if I can call it > that? > Rudi - If by “anomaly”, you mean an 'unexpected change in business plans’ , it is infrequent but does occur. We will

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Question: how often does Arin staff encounter this anomaly if I can call it that? RD On Apr 11, 2016 12:00 PM, wrote: > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > arin-ppml@arin.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: The key thing is that each transfer in a sequence should comply with the rules of every registry in the sequence, not just the two registries involved in that

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

. Regards, Mike - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong To: Mike Burns Cc: Jason Schiller ; arin-ppml@arin.net Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 I don’t see any problem with ARIN staff assisting an author in crafting language

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

@arin.net Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 I don’t see any problem with ARIN staff assisting an author in crafting language that will yield the desired staff interpretation. What do you see as the problem, exactly? (I’ll note that I think your

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: So you can tell us the draft exceeds policy and impinges on ARIN business procedure? You've suckered folks into that game one too many times. Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and compatibility go

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else suffer the continued wagging of my finger. Regards, Bill Herrin Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's president. I

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Richard J. Letts rjle...@uw.edu wrote: If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer policies. Hi Richard, The plain language of the transfer policies already

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

] On Behalf Of Rocky Sent: 4 June 2015 6:24 PM To: b...@herrin.us Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Hi William, Same as the CNNIC, KRNIC, VINNIC, IDNIC and NIXI ( Indian NIR) do not allow to transfer their IPv4 addresses out of their NIRs

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote: I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the community under another person’s name. It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought. Hi Mike, I'm of two minds about it myself.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Mike, If you object, I'm sure an AC member can be found to craft some text, and get staff and legal assessment. FWIW, if you like this restriction, I think the rjletts approach catches it all: If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then reject transfer to target registry

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Hi Mike, I'm of two minds about it myself. On the one hand, ARIN employees aren't supposed to be pushing their own policy. Too much risk of the organization folding in on itself to the exclusion of outside input. On the other hand, we've written a lot of crap policy for lack of a professional

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us wrote: ... Call it the transfer GPL: I ask that the receipient registry's outbound transfer policy be little more onerous than our own, but at the same time sufficiently diligent as to prevent addresses from eventually

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:04 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: So you can tell us the draft exceeds policy and impinges on ARIN business procedure? You've suckered folks into that game one too many times. Tell me the words

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

, 2015 3:30 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: William Herrin; John Curran; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 Mike, If you object, I'm sure an AC member can be found to craft some text, and get staff and legal assessment. FWIW, if you like this restriction, I think the rjletts

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.commailto:m...@iptrading.com wrote: I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the community under another person’s name. It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought. Mike - ARIN staff has

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

I am against 2015-2; either I’m not understanding why waiting to do this is a problem or it’s shuffling deckchairs for a minority of companies. Richard Letts ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

| Do you believe that allowing the transfers proposed in 2015-2 would significantly do | what you say is good for the community above? I posed a question... Is it good for the community to legitimize and reduce the risk of below board transfers and futures for organizations that desire more

Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: John, On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:22 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net mailto:jcur...@arin.net wrote: 1) Should we update the entry for those cases where there is a party with effective ‘possession’ (i.e. use) of an

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

. Conquering Complex Networks℠ From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:09 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml@arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 Are you saying that your primary school education failed to cover rhetorical and logical

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.commailto:srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote: ... I’ve seen quite a lot of folks in this community state in this forum that keeping the Registry Database current is important to them and I share that position. Steve - If

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

On 6/4/2015 8:36 AM, John Curran wrote: On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com mailto:m...@iptrading.com wrote: I refused to cooperate with any needs test but told them I would send them a copy of the contract and they could also communicate with the seller. PPML Folks -

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.atmailto:matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/4/2015 8:36 AM, John Curran wrote: On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.commailto:m...@iptrading.com wrote: I refused to cooperate with any needs test but told them I would

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:37 AM, David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote: Yes RD. I can think of two interesting (and very different) scenarios where this plays out every day: 1) Companies either abandon transfer requests with ARIN, or they don't even submit them. ARIN staff have

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.commailto:m...@iptrading.com wrote: I refused to cooperate with any needs test but told them I would send them a copy of the contract and they could also communicate with the seller. PPML Folks - I believe we are expected to follow the

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.commailto:srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote: So assuming this was a legacy resource transfer, that means ARIN is purposely stopping the database from being updated even when informed about a contractual transfer and provided

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:37 AM To: arin-ppml@arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.commailto:m...@iptrading.com wrote: I refused

Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:29 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: Failing to update the contact information of a buyer of heroin means that law enforcement will no longer have records that reflect reality, thereby defeating the point of law enforcement. Or something to that effect.

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks℠ From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:59 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml@arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 On Jun 4

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks℠ From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:59 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml@arin.net List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2 On Jun 4, 2015, at 17:47, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse

Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

David - Apologies - it was pointed out to me that you might be speaking of how transfers should happen specifically for legacy IP address blocks (i.e. those held by parties due to their issuance prior to ARIN’s formation)… if that’s the case, please recast the questions as

Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:29 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: 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

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote: I take it from your tone that you don’t think that keeping the ARIN Registry Database is as important than Needs Testing. Then perhaps you should read the words, rather than imputing a “tone.” You’ve managed,

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute that was ever written. In fact, the combination of the National Banking Act and Federal Reserve Regulations do, in fact, comprise statutes defining a bank check. Owen

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

Hi Mike, On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Mike Winters mwint...@edwardrose.com wrote: This has been dragging on for so long, I forget what it was originally about… Policy improvements to facilitate buying addressing in the ARIN region and transferring them to China. I concede fault for being

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

-PPML 2015-2) (William Herrin) 2. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) (Mike Burns) 3. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) (John Curran) 4. Re: On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) (William Herrin) 5. Re

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote: You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in that case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you negotiated

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:44 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote: You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in that case you

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

legacy legal rights which remain untested in court. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:34 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) On Jun 3

Re: [arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

John, You obviously feel very strongly about this topic, What gave it away? :) If I understand your view on the matter, you are concerned that current ARIN registry policy as developed by this community results in “registry inaccuracy” Not that it does result in inaccuracy, but

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote: My recollection is not off and my statement stands. The judge, after consulting with counsel for Nortel on the issue, issued a motion for the auction to commence in which he found that Nortel had the exclusive right to transfer

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 3, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote: Hi John, The point remains. You could have argued that no transfer could happen without ARIN approval. We argued exactly that, and the language to the contrary was removed by the parties. An address block is transferred

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Mike Winters mwint...@edwardrose.com wrote: Demonstrable reason: I have been using the addresses for 10 years and now ARIN gives them to someone else causing my business to stop working unexpectedly. Registration or Deed/Title, it is well established that if

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:50 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: If (in an alternate world) IP addresses were to be deemed to be freehold property rather than simply a specific set of rights, then it is quite likely that they would be USG property (dependent upon a rather interesting and

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- and statutes giving property in information aren't really something that

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 3, 2015, at 6:25 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us wrote: ... Neat trap! LRSA signers, aren't you glad you signed the LRSA? All your IP are belong to ARIN. I'll have to put some thought into this one. Bill - I’ll spare you the effort, since (as far as I know) it

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with -- and statutes giving property in information aren't really something that

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as an exclusive right to use in copyright. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:15 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

Speaking only as myself and not representing the views of ARIN, the ARIN AC, or any other person, group, body, structure, vessel, corporation or SuperPAC. I believe at the heart of the difficulty coming to agreement about what rights are being transferred is the fact that one side of the debate

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

It matters because the ability to obtain unlimited address space absent justified need could be used nefariously in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to: 1. Competitive advantage 2. Anticompetitive practices 3. Price gouging 4.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: And the end result of all this nefariousness (and the astonishing Byzantine gymnastics some in the community is engaging in to try to prevent their own interpretation of 'nefariousness') would be: IPv4 is limited,

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Owen, On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: It matters because the ability to obtain unlimited address space Hint: IPv4 is limited, largely allocated, and in private hands. absent justified need could be used nefariously in a variety of ways, including, but not

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:17 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: John, David - It’s not a word game; Actually, it is. It is the same kind of Clintonesque I did not have 'sex' with that woman/depends on meaning of the word 'is' is legalistic word games that made Bill Clinton

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On 6/3/2015 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: The one where it ends up in private hands who aren't allowed to sell it to me even if they want to? Possibly other problems, but at the very least that one. Exactly. All that the existing policies are doing is making it harder for people who want to

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On 6/3/2015 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: It matters because the ability to obtain unlimited address space absent justified need could be used nefariously in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to: 1. Competitive advantage 2. Anticompetitive practices

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Orgs that have money now and future needs can sign contracts to lock up space from potential sellers, to be transferred later. Nothing ARIN policy can do about that. Already happening. So which people does needs assessment for transfer help, again? Matthew Kaufman

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/3/2015 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: The one where it ends up in private hands who aren't allowed to sell it to me even if they want to? Possibly other problems, but at the very least that one. Exactly. All

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication of an “exclusive right to use” accompanying the number registry. Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a precedence-based presumption

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 3, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: Orgs that have money now and future needs can sign contracts to lock up space from potential sellers, to be transferred later. Nothing ARIN policy can do about that. Already happening. So which people does needs

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

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

[arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:33 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: On the contrary John, I (of course) place great value legal frameworks, however I strongly believe that such legal frameworks must be created to allow for the entities operating within that framework to perform the

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

. Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each case could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. That is also incorrect. Thanks! /John Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses allocated to defunct entities being

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

John, It is unfortunate that you do not value the importance of the legal framework for the Internet identifier registry system, It is this kind of pointless hyperbole that makes discussing things with you such a joy. On the contrary John, I (of course) place great value legal

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:30 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:15 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: ... I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks are documentary

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:54 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us wrote: And have miraculously avoided getting it. It is obvious that such an outcome would be quite welcome. Again, it is upon others to pursue their particular beliefs if they feel legal redress is called for. ...

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 2, 2015, at 1:12 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: John, Do network operators, anti-abuse community members, law enforcement, consumer protection agencies, etc., make use of the registry? All of the above parties Do you think any of these communities believe it is in

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

We're way off in the weeds talking about what the word transfer means. And I still have no idea why the community believes that the potential for A-B-Money lather, rinse, repeat matters at all once the free pool is empty. Unless I missed it in the noise, not even the initial objectors to the

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Milton L Mueller muel...@syr.edu wrote: As stated… The concern is the potential for A-B-Money lather, rinse, repeat. If people abuse the policy ARIN has the leverage to affect the abusers, and that should be enough. No need for a global policy. ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Is there anything preventing people from, instead of transferring IP addresses, negotiating 99-year IRUs or some similar type of lease? That seems like it could be a loophole in the policies... If all it takes is converting from an end-user to an ISP so that the block can be reassigned, would

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net wrote: Is there anything preventing people from, instead of transferring IP addresses, negotiating 99-year IRUs or some similar type of lease? That seems like it could be a loophole in the policies... If all it takes is

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org mailto:d...@virtualized.org wrote: John, On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net mailto:jcur...@arin.net wrote: Your confusion is likely over what represents “correct

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

[mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:36 AM To: David Conrad Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org mailto:d...@virtualized.org wrote: John, On Jun 1

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

Conrad *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:04 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: John, On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:48 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: Your confusion is likely over what represents “correct attribution

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On May 31, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 5/31/2015 6:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: As stated… The concern is the potential for A-B-Money lather, rinse, repeat. Please explain why this matters one bit after ARIN no longer has a free pool from which the

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

As stated… The concern is the potential for A-B-Money lather, rinse, repeat. If people abuse the policy ARIN has the leverage to affect the abusers, and that should be enough. No need for a global policy. ARIN has no leverage once the resources have left the ARIN region, so your argument

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.atmailto:matt...@matthew.at wrote: ... I don't believe that ARIN or any other registry has any power to prevent me from using any integers I want in my own routers and network. Matthew I fully agree, but you might want to compare

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

John, all we're talking about is whether or not ARIN will be recording this in their database. I’ll observe that the rights are to address blocks in the registry and that makes it rather challenging to assert any rights to the address blocks unless those rights were transferred in

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On 6/1/2015 10:35 AM, David Conrad wrote: John, all we're talking about is whether or not ARIN will be recording this in their database. I’ll observe that the rights are to address blocks in the registry and that makes it rather challenging to assert any rights to the address blocks unless

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

. -Original Message- From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 12:00 PM To: William Herrin; Matthew Kaufman Cc: Rudolph Daniel; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 That's

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On 6/1/2015 11:06 AM, Tony Hain wrote: Trying to protect the public from speculative activities related to IPv4 is actually stalling the adoption of IPv6. Get out of the way and let the market operate. Once the price of maintaining IPv4 gets real, it will be clearer to everyone why they should

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: Anti-flip shouldn't matter the moment there's no free pool left to allocate from. Hi Matthew, That's only true if everybody is playing by the same rules. I asked, but I still haven't heard someone explain the CNNIC

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:28 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.netmailto:jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 1, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.atmailto:matt...@matthew.at wrote: ... I don't believe that ARIN or any other registry has any power to prevent me from using any integers I want

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us wrote: ... A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within the routing infrastructure on the public Internet. Bill - if you think

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those numbers within the routing infrastructure

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

That's only true if everybody is playing by the same rules. I asked, but I still haven't heard someone explain the CNNIC rules and process that facilitate IPv4 addresses transferring out of China and over to North America. Reciprocity is something of a requirement for free trade. I didn't

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: But in the case at hand, holder X writes a letter to non-holder Y saying sure, I'm ok with you advertising these addresses for the next year If holder X then sues non-holder Y and presents the ARIN registration as

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:09 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: If you provide an actual citation of such a finding, it should be fairly easy to find the language to that effect in the judgement. Let me put this another way: If I were to find an ISP willing to let me announce

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:01 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: If you provide an actual citation of such a finding, it should be fairly easy to find the language to that effect in the judgement. Let me put this another

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 4:09 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On 6/1/2015 1:09 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:50 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: A registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of those

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:21 PM, David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote: apparently, there is no reciprocity -- CNNIC cannot be moved to APNIC. Then how is it possible that APNIC is considered to have reciprocal and compatible transfer policies with ARIN as required under section NRPM

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: Registry information is often used as evidence in legal matters, but that does not support your assertion that “a registration is most emphatically intended to confer upon the registrant the right to -exclude- others' use of

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: On 6/1/2015 2:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: If you provide an actual citation of such a finding, it should be fairly easy to find the language to that

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 6:10 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:52 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Jun 1, 2015, at 5:34 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: Discuss. With. ARIN. Counsel. Because you're plain wrong. This has already been done, with

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

All We're a small operation, but we have had several announcement events that seem to bear on the matter. We bought a small company some years ago and once we sorted everything out, we found the previous owner had simply laid claim to the a /21 that was adjacent to their proper allocation.

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

John, On Jun 1, 2015, at 11:22 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: If organization A purchases a block of addresses from organization B _and is able to convince their ISP(s) to route that block of addresses_, it would seem the rights to that address block have been transferred from A to

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On Jun 1, 2015, at 7:30 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote: I'll ask again (since you conveniently ignored the question): Historically, the point of the registry database was to facilitate management of the network, e.g., a place you could look up registration information when

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

John, you've used language to obfuscate David's point, which is that ARIN does not *allow* *transfers* of IP address space between entities. ARIN does set out policies that participating members must abide by, but since a) we have evidence that transfer market participants exist who basically

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

On 5/31/2015 6:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On May 31, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Milton L Mueller muel...@syr.edu mailto:muel...@syr.edu wrote: Owen, I am not buying the argument that this has anything to do with anti-flipping. We are talking about internal transfers – movement to another arm of the

  1   2   >