On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:31 PM wrote:
> However, the proposal under discussion does not return the money to the
> registrants, but leaves that decision to the Board of Directors.
>
> Therefore, I remain opposed until the auction language is removed.
I agree with that. I oppose the proposal
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:39 PM Carlton Samuels
wrote:
> I wish to offer a perspective from the English-speaking Caribbean.
>
>
Thank you, Carlton.
Starting as far back as 2004 and for several interrelated reasons, some of
> us have been actively encouraging companies and entities with
>
However, the proposal under discussion does not return the money to the
registrants, but leaves that decision to the Board of Directors.
Therefore, I remain opposed until the auction language is removed.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019, William
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:58 AM Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but can say from firsthand experience that ARIN’s
present stance as administrator and steward of the registry makes dealing
with many disputes rather straightforward, and if we were a party of
significant financial
On 23 Jun 2019, at 5:57 AM, Mueller, Milton L
mailto:mil...@gatech.edu>> wrote:
...
With enough effort, we’re likely to achieve the same outcome in the end, but it
is readily apparent to be that becoming a party with a strong financial
incentive in this manner will raise the cost and
+1
Owen
> On Jun 23, 2019, at 04:35 , Joe Provo wrote:
>
>
>
> Strongly oppose.
>
> We all see things through our own lenses, so I'm not
> suprised by the position of economists. I am troubled
> by some folks using the phrase "distort the market"
> to describe tge normal functioning of the
Hi Milton,
I answered your question by submitting a proposal to place returned addresses
in 4.10 to starve the waiting list to death.
That should be ready for debate next week, but we can begin.
Why is that silly?
It's likely to be an extremely marginal addition to the 4.10 /10 block.
Do
Strongly oppose.
We all see things through our own lenses, so I'm not
suprised by the position of economists. I am troubled
by some folks using the phrase "distort the market"
to describe tge normal functioning of the RIR, as if
there is some form of *primacy* to be placed on the
transfer
I do not see "dumping" them into 4.10 as wasting the addresses.
If the wait list was not around, I strongly suspect that 4.10 will become
more popular, as the only other "Free" option for most.
I see 4.10 as a mini version of the wait list, that has MORE limits on it
than the current wait
I see that no one has answered the question I posed - if v4 resources are
reclaimed by ARIN how does it dispose of them efficiently if it does not
auction them off?
Marty is correct that ARIN could refuse to accept returns. That that would
require the would-be returning party to auction them
John, this is a pretty lame response, I think you have substituted length for
accuracy here in order to make it appear as if you have more of an argument
than you do. But in reality you are just repeating, over and over again, the
speculation that monetary gain would become a decisive factor
Support
From: Alyssa Moore
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: David Farmer
Cc: Mueller, Milton L ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List (was:Re:
Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation
Regarding NRPM
Oppose.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Alyssa Moore wrote:
> 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 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun,
Oppose.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2019, at 02:56, Roberts, Orin wrote:
Opposed! “ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful and counter
to its overall mission”.
I would advocate a policy placing those resources for distribution under
Section 4.4 (Micro Allocations ie /24) and
I'm in favor abolishing the waiting list.
The auction language doesn't belong in this policy.
*"Add policy section: 4.1.10 - Returned and Reclaimed Resources*
*ARIN will auction returned and reclaimed IPv4 number resources to
recipients qualified under Section 8.3. Revenues realized from this
I oppose the RIR to participate on any market place and thefore to keep the
waiting list, BUT limited to a maximum of /22 regardless of the size of who
request and ONLY for newcomers as it is in others RIRs.
A single /24 is useless for majority of uses, even for CGNAT and other
techniques that
I oppose this draft policy.
—
Brian Jones, CSP, CSM, CSPO
NIS Virginia Tech
bjo...@vt.edu
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:27 PM Alyssa Moore wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Trying to do a temperature check here. If you're following this thread,
> please indicate whether you support or oppose this draft
I am for this policy.
Robert Clarke
Mobile: +1 (206) 350-9699
> On Jun 20, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Alyssa Moore wrote:
>
> 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
ARIN would be a competitor AND a regulator in the marketplace.
I oppose the idea and support the idea of placing returned and revoked
addresses in 4.10.
Actually I proposed that as a new policy a few days ago but maybe it got lost
or I filled out the template wrong.
Regards,
Mike Burns
IE ARIN would be a competitor in a marketplace for which it holds a monopoly.
Orin Roberts
IP PROVISIONING
Bell Canada
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: June-20-19 12:57 PM
To: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: [EXT]Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7:
Opposed! “ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful and counter to
its overall mission”.
I would advocate a policy placing those resources for distribution under
Section 4.4 (Micro Allocations ie /24) and 4.10 ( IPv4 block facilitate to IPv6
deployment).
Orin Roberts
IP
Oppose
I have no problem with the idea of getting rid of the waiting list part of
the proposal.
I do have a problem with an auction, as I think it will cause lots of
issues when ARIN revokes resources, because it certainly will be alleged
that "ARIN did it for the money", as has already
Oppose.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:27 AM Alyssa Moore wrote:
> 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 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun,
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 wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM Mueller, Milton L
> wrote:
>
>> OK, I’ve read it, and
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 2:50 PM Mueller, Milton L 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
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:46 AM John Curran wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2019, at 3:59 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
[ clip ]
> I am not a lawyer, but can say from firsthand experience that ARIN’s
> present stance as administrator and steward of the registry makes dealing
> with many disputes rather
On 16 Jun 2019, at 3:59 PM, Mueller, Milton L
mailto:mil...@gatech.edu>> wrote:
...
Actually, it doesn't. It raises a highly speculative possibility that in some
future world, someone in a revocation case MIGHT argue that ARIN has a
financial incentive to recover the resources, and that that
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of hostmas...@uneedus.com
> This legal assessment seems to speak against auction of
> revoked and recovered resources.
Actually, it doesn't. It raises a highly speculative possibility that in some
future world, someone in a revocation
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
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 11:55 AM David Farmer wrote:
> Those of you who support Elimination of the Waiting List, effectively
Draft Policy ARIN-2019-7 should read the Staff and Legal Review for the
policy posted on April 29th.
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_7/
>
> In
Add them to RFC1918 space.
Handing out free addresses with current market prices is an open invitation
for fraud. You won’t catch all of it.
Matthew Kaufman
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:24 PM wrote:
> This legal assessment seems to speak against auction of revoked and
> recovered resources.
>
>
Not selling or idling is a market norm. Even if because of inconvenience or
laziness. Markets fix that on their own.
On revoked resources? Its a good question. Abandoned things are frequently
auctioned. As long as “profit” translated to member benefits such as fee
reductions, all good here.
The problem is not everyone wants to sell them, many people don't want to
deal with the hassle, they just want to return the addresses. Also, are you
suggesting that ARIN should just let resources remain in the registry if
people don't pay their bill? Please explain how the market will figure out
This legal assessment seems to speak against auction of revoked and
recovered resources.
Instead, I say that the resources should be added to the 4.10 IPv6
deployment block, rather than being auctioned off and not have a wait
list.
We have this 4.10 block. Why not add recovered addresses
ARIN doesn't have to profit. Kill the list and concept. Let the market sort
it out. Don't accept returns at all. “Policy” aside, it is that simple.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 14:56 David Farmer wrote:
> Those of you who support Elimination of the Waiting List, effectively
> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-7
Those of you who support Elimination of the Waiting List, effectively Draft
Policy ARIN-2019-7 should read the Staff and Legal Review for the policy
posted on April 29th.
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_7/
In particular the Legal Assessment;
This policy requires legal
36 matches
Mail list logo
