Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 16 April 2013.
Support. This goal of 2012-03 was to align the justification period with the other RIR's who allow inter-RIR transfers. Tore's proposal 2013-03 will remove justification altogether, which is what all the RIR's need to do. The reason I went with a 24 month justification period in 2012-03 was because that was the period APNIC and ARIN use. I was hopeful that this would align the RIPE such that when transfers to and from those RIR's were considered, they would be allowed, because the RIPE would have a "like" policy. Tore's policy may have the impact of bringing ALL the RIR's into the current market reality: that when an entity is paying for IP's, that is needs justification enough. There is no hoarding in an unencumbered market. RIPE is demonstrating true world leadership here. Sandra Brown
While I support the goals of 2013-03 in a post-IPv4-depletion world, we are currently in an uncomfortable intermediate state where IPv4 depletion has occurred in some regions (RIPE and APNIC) but not in others (ARIN, LACNIC, and AfriNIC). I think it will be wise to wait until IPv4 depletion to remove of (at least some) needs requirements in those regions that still have an IPv4 free pool. As a result of the fact of remaining RIR free pools, and the current policy and sentiment in the ARIN region that inter-RIR IPv4 transfers should occur only to organizations/regions that justify need for the addresses (to avoid a run on said free pool), I think it would be wise to do something like this: - First, pass an inter-RIR transfer policy in the RIPE region that is compatible with both the APNIC and ARIN inter-RIR transfer policies (i.e. has some form of needs justification). - Second, make sure that RIPE's transfer policy serves all organizations in the RIPE region, including those who in the past got PI space from RIPE. - Third, relax the ARIN region's inter-RIR transfer policy such that after IPv4 depletion in the ARIN region, transfers are allowed to regions with policies like 2013-03. - Fourth, pass something along the lines of 2013-03 in the RIPE region (to take effect) after IPv4 depletion has occurred in the ARIN region. - Fifth, update policy in other regions as well to align policy with the needs of a post-IPv4-depletion world. I'm more than happy to help drive #3 and eventually #5 in the ARIN region. -Scott On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM, <sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com> wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 16 April 2013.
Support.
This goal of 2012-03 was to align the justification period with the other RIR's who allow inter-RIR transfers. Tore's proposal 2013-03 will remove justification altogether, which is what all the RIR's need to do. The reason I went with a 24 month justification period in 2012-03 was because that was the period APNIC and ARIN use. I was hopeful that this would align the RIPE such that when transfers to and from those RIR's were considered, they would be allowed, because the RIPE would have a "like" policy.
Tore's policy may have the impact of bringing ALL the RIR's into the current market reality: that when an entity is paying for IP's, that is needs justification enough. There is no hoarding in an unencumbered market. RIPE is demonstrating true world leadership here.
Sandra Brown
Hello Scott, * Scott Leibrand
While I support the goals of 2013-03 in a post-IPv4-depletion world, we are currently in an uncomfortable intermediate state where IPv4 depletion has occurred in some regions (RIPE and APNIC) but not in others (ARIN, LACNIC, and AfriNIC). I think it will be wise to wait until IPv4 depletion to remove of (at least some) needs requirements in those regions that still have an IPv4 free pool.
Geoff Huston's http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html projects that global IPv4 depletion won't happen until July 2020, when AfriNIC is set to deplete as the last of the five RIRs. That is a *long* time to keep around a bureaucracy that no longer serves any purpose.
As a result of the fact of remaining RIR free pools, and the current policy and sentiment in the ARIN region that inter-RIR IPv4 transfers should occur only to organizations/regions that justify need for the addresses (to avoid a run on said free pool), I think it would be wise to do something like this:
- First, pass an inter-RIR transfer policy in the RIPE region that is compatible with both the APNIC and ARIN inter-RIR transfer policies (i.e. has some form of needs justification). - Second, make sure that RIPE's transfer policy serves all organizations in the RIPE region, including those who in the past got PI space from RIPE. - Third, relax the ARIN region's inter-RIR transfer policy such that after IPv4 depletion in the ARIN region, transfers are allowed to regions with policies like 2013-03. - Fourth, pass something along the lines of 2013-03 in the RIPE region (to take effect) after IPv4 depletion has occurred in the ARIN region. - Fifth, update policy in other regions as well to align policy with the needs of a post-IPv4-depletion world.
I'm more than happy to help drive #3 and eventually #5 in the ARIN region.
While I see and acknowledge that 2013-03 conflicts with ARIN's need requirement for inter-region transfers, and that this is a valid argument against the proposed policy, I do feel that this argument alone is not strong enough to to stop 2013-03, for the following reasons: 1) It is entirely dependent on proposal 2012-02 passing, which is far from a certainty. 2012-02 has received at best a lukewarm response from the community - according to the chairs, it has, quote, «far from consensus». Should 2012-02 not pass, 2013-03's conflict with ARIN's need requirement is completely irrelevant. 2) According to Ingrid Wijte's MENOG12 presentation (http://www.menog.org/presentations/menog-12/127-IPv4_Transfers-RIPE_NCC_Upda...), there have been only a measly 17 permanent transfers in the RIPE region in the last three months. It would surprise me greatly if the amount of assignments having been made by the LIRs in the same period is not at least two orders of magnitude more. Choosing to uphold the need justification and documentation bureaucracy for all those assignments that we LIRs perform on a frequent basis, for the sole purpose of allowing only one specific flavour of the very rarely used allocation transfer mechanism to work, seems to me to fail a very basic cost-benefit analysis. 3) The RIPE community's benefit of allowing transfers from the ARIN region into the RIPE region is only obvious due to the fact that ARIN still has remaining free space in their address pool. «They've still got more space, let's go grab as much of it as we can before it's all gone!» It is not certain that it is a net benefit to the RIPE community to allow transfers with depleted regions. The result may very well be that more address space is being transferred *out* of our region, than what is coming in - further exacerbating our depletion ordeal. This uncertainty makes the cost-benefit analysis I mentioned in #2 even more clear in favour of 2013-03. According to Geoff Huston, ARIN looks set to deplete exactly one year from now. Keeping in mind that 2012-02 appears to still have a long way to go in the PDP, the time period during which the benefit of allowing free trade with ARIN is obvious is only going to be a few months at most. Quite possibly, ARIN will deplete before 2012-02 gets implemented, if so the obvious beneficial period will not exist at all. 4) Again, ARIN is soon depleting. As I mentioned in the proposal itself, this might cause the ARIN community to do a reality adjustment similar to 2013-03, and rescind the need requirement for inter-region transfers. After all, there is little point in trying to prevent other regions from "bleeding them dry" if they have nothing left anyway. So that's your item #3, essentially. If you're willing to suggest that to the ARIN community now, I'm all for it. Best regards, Tore Anderson
On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:24 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
3) The RIPE community's benefit of allowing transfers from the ARIN region into the RIPE region is only obvious due to the fact that ARIN still has remaining free space in their address pool. «They've still got more space, let's go grab as much of it as we can before it's all gone!»
It is not certain that it is a net benefit to the RIPE community to allow transfers with depleted regions. The result may very well be that more address space is being transferred *out* of our region, than what is coming in - further exacerbating our depletion ordeal. This uncertainty makes the cost-benefit analysis I mentioned in #2 even more clear in favour of 2013-03.
According to Geoff Huston, ARIN looks set to deplete exactly one year from now. Keeping in mind that 2012-02 appears to still have a long way to go in the PDP, the time period during which the benefit of allowing free trade with ARIN is obvious is only going to be a few months at most. Quite possibly, ARIN will deplete before 2012-02 gets implemented, if so the obvious beneficial period will not exist at all.
I am not advocating for a policy outcome one way or the other, but should also note that there is a significant amount of early address assignments in the ARIN region (e.g. those that were classsful and done in 80's and early 90's) which may still be underutilized and therefore (with some effort) could become available as parties decide if renumbering down to free up some of the remainder is worthwhile. This is independent of the space being issued from ARIN's free pool, and hence is relevant even after depletion of the free pool in the ARIN region. Also note that source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the approval of a transfer request (this restriction does not include M&A transfers), so parties issued space from ARIN's free pool between now and its depletion are not likely to be able to make use of the Inter-RIR transfer policy in any case. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
* John Curran
I am not advocating for a policy outcome one way or the other, but should also note that there is a significant amount of early address assignments in the ARIN region (e.g. those that were classsful and done in 80's and early 90's) which may still be underutilized and therefore (with some effort) could become available as parties decide if renumbering down to free up some of the remainder is worthwhile. This is independent of the space being issued from ARIN's free pool, and hence is relevant even after depletion of the free pool in the ARIN region.
Hi John, Absolutely. Wile there's also underutilised allocations in the RIPE region too, I have no problems accepting that there are more of them in the ARIN region. However, there *is* a connection to the ARIN free pool here. Its continued existence ensures there is a (almost) gratis way of obtaining IPv4 addresses for LIRs in the ARIN region, which in itself is going to limit the price ARIN region buyers are willing to pay other LIRs for their second-hand IPv4 addresses. When the ARIN free pool depletes, however, ARIN region LIRs seeking IPv4 space will be *forced* to obtain it on the second-hand market, just as APNIC and RIPE region LIRs are today. This might drive up the price they're willing to pay. And if it turns out that the price the market is willing for pay for IPv4 addresses in the ARIN region is higher than it is in the RIPE region (or the APNIC region for that matter), it is no certainty that the inter-region balance of trade for the RIPE region will be that there are more addresses coming in than there are going out. Note that I'm not saying that this *will* happen though - just that it is very hard to predict what the future holds - as it depends on a number of uncertain factors, including for example the level of IPv6 deployment in the various regions. Nor do I believe that the RIPE community should only participate in inter-region trading if we can somehow ascertain that we will be the "market winners". I believe that free trade is inherently a good thing. But - as with everything else in life, it boils down to comparing the pros and cons of doing something - and IMHO the potential pros of being able to trade IPv4 with the ARIN region are greatly outweighed by the cons of upholding the otherwise pointless assignment need bureaucracy and resulting operational overhead in the day to day operations of the LIRs in our region. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson
Hi, On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:08:34AM +0000, John Curran wrote:
I am not advocating for a policy outcome one way or the other, but should also note that there is a significant amount of early address assignments in the ARIN region (e.g. those that were classsful and done in 80's and early 90's)
Do these fall under ARIN policy? (ERX space handed out before the existance of the RIRs and then transferred to the RIPE NCC as part of documentation cleanup does *not* fall under RIPE address policy) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:08:34AM +0000, John Curran wrote:
I am not advocating for a policy outcome one way or the other, but should also note that there is a significant amount of early address assignments in the ARIN region (e.g. those that were classsful and done in 80's and early 90's)
Do these fall under ARIN policy?
(ERX space handed out before the existance of the RIRs and then transferred to the RIPE NCC as part of documentation cleanup does *not* fall under RIPE address policy)
If this is the case, then why does https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 say: "Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA." ? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Hi,
(ERX space handed out before the existance of the RIRs and then transferred to the RIPE NCC as part of documentation cleanup does *not* fall under RIPE address policy)
If this is the case, then why does https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 say:
"Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA."
?
There are cases where organisations got early registration addresses from IANA, and then afterwards voluntarily registered those resources under their LIR, thereby allowing the RIPE NCC to apply RIPE policies to those resources. So the resources are never allocated by the RIPE NCC but still follow RIPE policy. The text you quote accommodates that. Cheers, Sander
Hi, On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:32:32PM -0400, McTim wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
(ERX space handed out before the existance of the RIRs and then transferred to the RIPE NCC as part of documentation cleanup does *not* fall under RIPE address policy)
If this is the case, then why does https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 say:
"Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA."
?
Well, to be precise, that's not something 2012-02 adds, but is in the policy text since transfers have been added. (2012-02 rephrases the first sentence of the second paragraph of 5.5, which this is not) I can only speculate on the original author's motives, but I think it's not wrong to *permit* something which might become relevant eventually, should an ERX holder decide to bring their address space "under the umbrella of the RIPE NCC", however the specifics might look like, 10 years later... (ncc-services is working on a proposal for interaction between the early address holders and the RIPE NCC). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Mar 24, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:08:34AM +0000, John Curran wrote:
I am not advocating for a policy outcome one way or the other, but should also note that there is a significant amount of early address assignments in the ARIN region (e.g. those that were classsful and done in 80's and early 90's)
Do these fall under ARIN policy?
All address space in the ARIN region falls under ARIN policy. We do not presently have any policies which provide different treatment for early registrations, but we are not precluded from adopting such if desired by the community. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Hi, On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 04:36:00PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
Do these fall under ARIN policy? All address space in the ARIN region falls under ARIN policy.
How did you get address space holders that never had a contract with ARIN to agree to ARIN policy? (Genuinely interested, as we have some slight issues with that topic over here :-) ) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 04:36:00PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
All address space in the ARIN region falls under ARIN policy.
How did you get address space holders that never had a contract with ARIN to agree to ARIN policy?
Gert - IP address holders, regardless of their history, do not "agree to" specific policies developed in any region... What they do is agree to participate in the Registry System and be subject to the policies developed by each community as a result. In more recent years, this has been through formal contracts where possible, but even a party that does not have a formal contract can chose to participate or not. You can use any numbers you want in your routers, but if you wish to use numbers which are unique per the Internet Registry system, then you are participating in the Internet Registry system, gaining the benefits thereof, and therefore are subject to the policies used in its coordination & operation. Hope this helps! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
Hello Scott,
* Scott Leibrand
While I support the goals of 2013-03 in a post-IPv4-depletion world, we are currently in an uncomfortable intermediate state where IPv4 depletion has occurred in some regions (RIPE and APNIC) but not in others (ARIN, LACNIC, and AfriNIC). I think it will be wise to wait until IPv4 depletion to remove of (at least some) needs requirements in those regions that still have an IPv4 free pool.
Geoff Huston's http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html projects that global IPv4 depletion won't happen until July 2020, when AfriNIC is set to deplete as the last of the five RIRs. That is a *long* time to keep around a bureaucracy that no longer serves any purpose.
I was not very clear. I was just making the (obvious and possibly irrelevant) point that LACNIC and AfriNIC won't want to do something like 2013-03 until their free pools are exhausted.
As a result of the fact of remaining RIR free pools, and the current policy and sentiment in the ARIN region that inter-RIR IPv4 transfers should occur only to organizations/regions that justify need for the addresses (to avoid a run on said free pool), I think it would be wise to do something like this:
- First, pass an inter-RIR transfer policy in the RIPE region that is compatible with both the APNIC and ARIN inter-RIR transfer policies (i.e. has some form of needs justification). - Second, make sure that RIPE's transfer policy serves all organizations in the RIPE region, including those who in the past got PI space from RIPE. - Third, relax the ARIN region's inter-RIR transfer policy such that after IPv4 depletion in the ARIN region, transfers are allowed to regions with policies like 2013-03. - Fourth, pass something along the lines of 2013-03 in the RIPE region (to take effect) after IPv4 depletion has occurred in the ARIN region. - Fifth, update policy in other regions as well to align policy with the needs of a post-IPv4-depletion world.
I'm more than happy to help drive #3 and eventually #5 in the ARIN region.
While I see and acknowledge that 2013-03 conflicts with ARIN's need requirement for inter-region transfers, and that this is a valid argument against the proposed policy, I do feel that this argument alone is not strong enough to to stop 2013-03, for the following reasons:
1) It is entirely dependent on proposal 2012-02 passing, which is far from a certainty. 2012-02 has received at best a lukewarm response from the community - according to the chairs, it has, quote, «far from consensus». Should 2012-02 not pass, 2013-03's conflict with ARIN's need requirement is completely irrelevant.
2) According to Ingrid Wijte's MENOG12 presentation ( http://www.menog.org/presentations/menog-12/127-IPv4_Transfers-RIPE_NCC_Upda... ), there have been only a measly 17 permanent transfers in the RIPE region in the last three months. It would surprise me greatly if the amount of assignments having been made by the LIRs in the same period is not at least two orders of magnitude more.
I am somewhat baffled by this. Do you (or does anyone) have a good idea as to what ISPs are doing instead? Are they improving utilization efficiency within their network? Still using up space they got before the free pool was exhausted? Or (I doubt this) putting new users on IPv6? I know that the RIPE intra-RIR transfer policy is somewhat strict compared to those in APNIC and ARIN (not allowing transfers to end users, for example): is that likely playing a part as well?
Choosing to uphold the need justification and documentation bureaucracy for all those assignments that we LIRs perform on a frequent basis, for the sole purpose of allowing only one specific flavour of the very rarely used allocation transfer mechanism to work, seems to me to fail a very basic cost-benefit analysis.
3) The RIPE community's benefit of allowing transfers from the ARIN region into the RIPE region is only obvious due to the fact that ARIN still has remaining free space in their address pool. «They've still got more space, let's go grab as much of it as we can before it's all gone!»
It is not certain that it is a net benefit to the RIPE community to allow transfers with depleted regions. The result may very well be that more address space is being transferred *out* of our region, than what is coming in - further exacerbating our depletion ordeal. This uncertainty makes the cost-benefit analysis I mentioned in #2 even more clear in favour of 2013-03.
According to Geoff Huston, ARIN looks set to deplete exactly one year from now. Keeping in mind that 2012-02 appears to still have a long way to go in the PDP, the time period during which the benefit of allowing free trade with ARIN is obvious is only going to be a few months at most. Quite possibly, ARIN will deplete before 2012-02 gets implemented, if so the obvious beneficial period will not exist at all.
The inter-RIR transfer policies were specifically designed to prevent the free pool of one region from being drained via transfers to another region. Rather, the benefit of inter-RIR transfers comes from getting existing underutilized space back into use. As it happens, the ARIN region has a lot of large legacy allocations, many of which are underutilized. That source of supply, IMO, is what the RIPE region will be getting access to if/when a compatible inter-RIR transfer policy is passed. It is worth noting that prices in the transfer market to date are significantly higher in the RIPE region than the ARIN region. I believe this reflects the relative scarcity of supply in the RIPE region (which is likely also related to the reason there have been so few transactions). In the ARIN region, I believe prices already reflect sellers' expectations of the post-exhaustion supply/demand balance (non-bankrupt sellers are mostly holding out for free pool exhaustion rather than selling at a lower price). As a result, I don't expect transfer prices in the ARIN region to rise significantly when that demand materializes.
4) Again, ARIN is soon depleting. As I mentioned in the proposal itself, this might cause the ARIN community to do a reality adjustment similar to 2013-03, and rescind the need requirement for inter-region transfers. After all, there is little point in trying to prevent other regions from "bleeding them dry" if they have nothing left anyway. So that's your item #3, essentially. If you're willing to suggest that to the ARIN community now, I'm all for it.
We will undoubtedly discuss this (at least informally with interested parties) at next month's ARIN meeting. I suspect that if the discussion gets any traction, any resulting proposal will be to relax needs assessment requirements on transfers and reassignments only after the ARIN free pool is exhausted. -Scott
* Scott Leibrand
I was not very clear. I was just making the (obvious and possibly irrelevant) point that LACNIC and AfriNIC won't want to do something like 2013-03 until their free pools are exhausted.
Indeed (this goes for the ARIN region too actually). Something like 2013-03 in a region with an unexhausted free pool would lead to the Tragedy of the Commons pretty quickly, I'd expect.
2) According to Ingrid Wijte's MENOG12 presentation (http://www.menog.org/presentations/menog-12/127-IPv4_Transfers-RIPE_NCC_Upda...), there have been only a measly 17 permanent transfers in the RIPE region in the last three months. It would surprise me greatly if the amount of assignments having been made by the LIRs in the same period is not at least two orders of magnitude more.
I am somewhat baffled by this. Do you (or does anyone) have a good idea as to what ISPs are doing instead? Are they improving utilization efficiency within their network? Still using up space they got before the free pool was exhausted? Or (I doubt this) putting new users on IPv6?
I know that the RIPE intra-RIR transfer policy is somewhat strict compared to those in APNIC and ARIN (not allowing transfers to end users, for example): is that likely playing a part as well?
I can only answer for myself and the LIR I represent, and we're going for the "improving utilization efficiency" approach. We do absolutely not want to end up being dependent on transfers for business continuity. FWIW (and shameless plug alert), what I've been working on to this end you can read about at http://goo.gl/zVF3O.
The inter-RIR transfer policies were specifically designed to prevent the free pool of one region from being drained via transfers to another region. [...]
4) Again, ARIN is soon depleting. As I mentioned in the proposal itself, this might cause the ARIN community to do a reality adjustment similar to 2013-03, and rescind the need requirement for inter-region transfers. After all, there is little point in trying to prevent other regions from "bleeding them dry" if they have nothing left anyway. So that's your item #3, essentially. If you're willing to suggest that to the ARIN community now, I'm all for it.
We will undoubtedly discuss this (at least informally with interested parties) at next month's ARIN meeting. I suspect that if the discussion gets any traction, any resulting proposal will be to relax needs assessment requirements on transfers and reassignments only after the ARIN free pool is exhausted.
Good luck! :-) If indeed the goal of the need requirements of ARIN's inter-region transfer policy is only there to prevent the draining of ARIN's free pool, I'd think that the actual (and inevitable) exhaustion of the free pool should make it rather obvious that the requirement has outlived its utility, and can be safely removed. If that happens, especially if you get the ARIN PDP started in advance so that the requirement is ready to be rescinded immediately when the pool depletes, the amount of time with a "uncomfortable intermediate state" isn't likely to be more than a few months at most (both 2012-02 and 2013-03 must first pass the RIPE PDP, and ARIN must still have addresses left). Making any special policy in either region to handle that short period is probably not worth the effort. Tore
Scott In my opinion (as a fellow ARIN AC member) the best way to provide impetus for the needed policy changes in all regions is for RIPE to pass this policy and to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the sky does not fall once needs assessment is put to rest. Since RIPE is in the last /8 policy and thus for its tiny remaining free pool needs assessment is already gone, there is nothing "intermediate" about its status. Further, I do not understand your argument about "uncomfortable intermediate states" below. How does the absence of needs assessment in the RIPE region have any effect on AFRINIC and LACNIC, which still have free pools and do not allow transfers? Also, how does it have any effect on ARIN, when under its current policy transfers from ARIN to the RIPE region would not be possible ? In short, your suggested sequence for liberalization seems to me to get it backwards. None of the larger scale reforms you propose are likely to happen if RIPE doesn't take this first, catalytic step. If it does, the other reforms are far more likely to happen. From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:52 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) While I support the goals of 2013-03 in a post-IPv4-depletion world, we are currently in an uncomfortable intermediate state where IPv4 depletion has occurred in some regions (RIPE and APNIC) but not in others (ARIN, LACNIC, and AfriNIC). I think it will be wise to wait until IPv4 depletion to remove of (at least some) needs requirements in those regions that still have an IPv4 free pool. As a result of the fact of remaining RIR free pools, and the current policy and sentiment in the ARIN region that inter-RIR IPv4 transfers should occur only to organizations/regions that justify need for the addresses (to avoid a run on said free pool), I think it would be wise to do something like this: - First, pass an inter-RIR transfer policy in the RIPE region that is compatible with both the APNIC and ARIN inter-RIR transfer policies (i.e. has some form of needs justification). - Second, make sure that RIPE's transfer policy serves all organizations in the RIPE region, including those who in the past got PI space from RIPE. - Third, relax the ARIN region's inter-RIR transfer policy such that after IPv4 depletion in the ARIN region, transfers are allowed to regions with policies like 2013-03. - Fourth, pass something along the lines of 2013-03 in the RIPE region (to take effect) after IPv4 depletion has occurred in the ARIN region. - Fifth, update policy in other regions as well to align policy with the needs of a post-IPv4-depletion world. I'm more than happy to help drive #3 and eventually #5 in the ARIN region. -Scott On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM, <sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com<mailto:sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com>> wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> before 16 April 2013. Support.
This goal of 2012-03 was to align the justification period with the other RIR's who allow inter-RIR transfers. Tore's proposal 2013-03 will remove justification altogether, which is what all the RIR's need to do. The reason I went with a 24 month justification period in 2012-03 was because that was the period APNIC and ARIN use. I was hopeful that this would align the RIPE such that when transfers to and from those RIR's were considered, they would be allowed, because the RIPE would have a "like" policy. Tore's policy may have the impact of bringing ALL the RIR's into the current market reality: that when an entity is paying for IP's, that is needs justification enough. There is no hoarding in an unencumbered market. RIPE is demonstrating true world leadership here. Sandra Brown
From a political economy perspective (I think that's the term) you may be correct. But I don't think the catalysis of 2013-03 will be sufficient on its own: I suspect the ARIN community will only be willing to liberalize its needs-based inter-RIR transfer policy after the ARIN free pool is exhausted.
My point about AfriNIC and LACNIC was poorly stated, and somewhat unrelated to this discussion. (Just that they probably wouldn't pass something like 2013-03 *in their region* while they still have a free pool. But, duh.) The more important point is indeed the interaction between ARIN and RIPE. It is the combination of RIPE being empty and ARIN still having a free pool that makes for an "intermediate" state, and makes it difficult to reconcile the goals of 2013-03 with the desire to make sure all inter-RIR transfers out of the ARIN region continue to be needs-based. If the RIPE community thinks that eliminating needs justification bureaucracy is a higher priority than getting access to transfers of less-expensive legacy address space from the ARIN region (due to greater supply of underutilized addresses there), then I agree that passing 2013-03 would be appropriate. But I would predict that doing so will prevent any implementation of inter-RIR transfers from the ARIN region to the RIPE region until after (possibly well after) ARIN's free pool is exhausted. -Scott On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Scott****
In my opinion (as a fellow ARIN AC member) the best way to provide impetus for the needed policy changes in all regions is for RIPE to pass this policy and to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the sky does not fall once needs assessment is put to rest. Since RIPE is in the last /8 policy and thus for its tiny remaining free pool needs assessment is already gone, there is nothing "intermediate" about its status.****
** **
Further, I do not understand your argument about "uncomfortable intermediate states" below. How does the absence of needs assessment in the RIPE region have any effect on AFRINIC and LACNIC, which still have free pools and do not allow transfers? Also, how does it have any effect on ARIN, when under its current policy transfers from ARIN to the RIPE region would not be possible ? ****
** **
In short, your suggested sequence for liberalization seems to me to get it backwards. None of the larger scale reforms you propose are likely to happen if RIPE doesn't take this first, catalytic step. If it does, the other reforms are far more likely to happen.****
** **
*From:* address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Scott Leibrand *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:52 PM *To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)****
** **
While I support the goals of 2013-03 in a post-IPv4-depletion world, we are currently in an uncomfortable intermediate state where IPv4 depletion has occurred in some regions (RIPE and APNIC) but not in others (ARIN, LACNIC, and AfriNIC). I think it will be wise to wait until IPv4 depletion to remove of (at least some) needs requirements in those regions that still have an IPv4 free pool.****
** **
As a result of the fact of remaining RIR free pools, and the current policy and sentiment in the ARIN region that inter-RIR IPv4 transfers should occur only to organizations/regions that justify need for the addresses (to avoid a run on said free pool), I think it would be wise to do something like this:****
** **
- First, pass an inter-RIR transfer policy in the RIPE region that is compatible with both the APNIC and ARIN inter-RIR transfer policies (i.e. has some form of needs justification).****
- Second, make sure that RIPE's transfer policy serves all organizations in the RIPE region, including those who in the past got PI space from RIPE. ****
- Third, relax the ARIN region's inter-RIR transfer policy such that after IPv4 depletion in the ARIN region, transfers are allowed to regions with policies like 2013-03.****
- Fourth, pass something along the lines of 2013-03 in the RIPE region (to take effect) after IPv4 depletion has occurred in the ARIN region.****
- Fifth, update policy in other regions as well to align policy with the needs of a post-IPv4-depletion world.****
** **
I'm more than happy to help drive #3 and eventually #5 in the ARIN region. ****
** **
-Scott****
** **
** **
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM, <sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com> wrote: ****
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 16 April 2013.****
Support.
This goal of 2012-03 was to align the justification period with the other RIR's who allow inter-RIR transfers. Tore's proposal 2013-03 will remove justification altogether, which is what all the RIR's need to do. The reason I went with a 24 month justification period in 2012-03 was because that was the period APNIC and ARIN use. I was hopeful that this would align the RIPE such that when transfers to and from those RIR's were considered, they would be allowed, because the RIPE would have a "like" policy.
Tore's policy may have the impact of bringing ALL the RIR's into the current market reality: that when an entity is paying for IP's, that is needs justification enough. There is no hoarding in an unencumbered market. RIPE is demonstrating true world leadership here.
Sandra Brown
****
** **
OK. Your point is clearer now. But my understanding is that ARIN has no authority over transfers from a truly "legacy" (i.e., non-contracted) holder. If such a legacy holder wants to transfer to RIPE region without ARIN needs assessment, they can if RIPE allows it. ARIN will fuss and bluster about it, but so what? The more important point is indeed the interaction between ARIN and RIPE. It is the combination of RIPE being empty and ARIN still having a free pool that makes for an "intermediate" state, and makes it difficult to reconcile the goals of 2013-03 with the desire to make sure all inter-RIR transfers out of the ARIN region continue to be needs-based. If the RIPE community thinks that eliminating needs justification bureaucracy is a higher priority than getting access to transfers of less-expensive legacy address space from the ARIN region (due to greater supply of underutilized addresses there), then I agree that passing 2013-03 would be appropriate. But I would predict that doing so will prevent any implementation of inter-RIR transfers from the ARIN region to the RIPE region until after (possibly well after) ARIN's free pool is exhausted. -Scott
On Mar 25, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: OK. Your point is clearer now. But my understanding is that ARIN has no authority over transfers from a truly "legacy" (i.e., non-contracted) holder. If such a legacy holder wants to transfer to RIPE region without ARIN needs assessment, they can if RIPE allows it. ARIN will fuss and bluster about it, but so what? Milton - Your understanding is incorrect. ARIN operates the registry in accordance with the policy developed by ARIN region, and resources in the registry are therefore completely subject to those policies. As I noted earlier, we'd prefer contracts where possible, but even a party that does not have a formal contract can chose to participate or not. You can use any numbers you want in your routers, but if you wish to use numbers which are unique per the Internet Registry system, then you are participating in the Internet Registry system, gaining the benefits thereof, and therefore are subject to the policies used in its coordination & operation. Feel free to read <https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/>, question #18 and related answer for more background. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Your understanding is incorrect. ARIN operates the registry in accordance with the policy developed by ARIN region, and resources in the registry are therefore completely subject to those policies. As I noted earlier, we'd prefer contracts where possible, but even a party that does not have a formal contract can chose to participate or not. You can use any numbers you want in your routers, but if you wish to use numbers which are unique per the Internet Registry system, then you are participating in the Internet Registry system, gaining the benefits thereof, and therefore are subject to the policies used in its coordination & operation. Like I said, "fuss and bluster." This is an assertion of authority with nothing to back it up.
Would existing RIPE policy and practice allow the transfer of non-RSA legacy space currently registered in the ARIN database to a recipient in the RIPE region? The policy text would seem to allow it: "Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA." I guess it might require an ERX-style transfer of the original IANA assignment to RIPE's administrative control first? Has anyone attempted such a transfer yet, I wonder? -Scott On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
OK. Your point is clearer now. But my understanding is that ARIN has no authority over transfers from a truly "legacy" (i.e., non-contracted) holder. If such a legacy holder wants to transfer to RIPE region without ARIN needs assessment, they can if RIPE allows it. ARIN will fuss and bluster about it, but so what?****
** **
The more important point is indeed the interaction between ARIN and RIPE. It is the combination of RIPE being empty and ARIN still having a free pool that makes for an "intermediate" state, and makes it difficult to reconcile the goals of 2013-03 with the desire to make sure all inter-RIR transfers out of the ARIN region continue to be needs-based.****
** **
If the RIPE community thinks that eliminating needs justification bureaucracy is a higher priority than getting access to transfers of less-expensive legacy address space from the ARIN region (due to greater supply of underutilized addresses there), then I agree that passing 2013-03 would be appropriate. But I would predict that doing so will prevent any implementation of inter-RIR transfers from the ARIN region to the RIPE region until after (possibly well after) ARIN's free pool is exhausted.*** *
** **
-Scott****
On Mar 25, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand@gmail.com> wrote:
Would existing RIPE policy and practice allow the transfer of non-RSA legacy space currently registered in the ARIN database to a recipient in the RIPE region? The policy text would seem to allow it: "Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA." I guess it might require an ERX-style transfer of the original IANA assignment to RIPE's administrative control first?
Has anyone attempted such a transfer yet, I wonder?
Not likely to succeed, as it would be contrary to policy in the ARIN region. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Hi, On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:47:35PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
Not likely to succeed, as it would be contrary to policy in the ARIN region.
I can't see how stating "we are the masters of all american IP addresses!" can give you a legal claim on something assigned before ARIN existed, unless the holder either voluntarily accepts that claim, or had a contract with IANA/InterNIC that stated "should an American RIR emerge one day, these address blocks automatically fall under their policy". So - assuming no contract exists, what can you *do* if someone wants to transfer their Space to an entity in RIPE land? "Refuse to remove their database entry"? "Bully the RIPE NCC to not add a database entry?" Your stick is small... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 02:33:58PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Your stick is small...
They make up for that by not speaking very softly... ;p sncr, Sascha Luck
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
I can't see how stating "we are the masters of all american IP addresses!" can give you a legal claim on something assigned before ARIN existed, unless the holder either voluntarily accepts that claim, or had a contract with IANA/InterNIC that stated "should an American RIR emerge one day, these address blocks automatically fall under their policy".
Actually, the US Government, at the formation of ARIN stated exactly that: "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region." <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819> As I noted, ARIN operates the registry according to the policies set by the community in the region, these policies define how IP addresses are managed and allocated in the region, and this is as expected since our formation. Attempts to transfer resources contrary to policy make resource subject to reclamation per the community-develop guidelines for resource review. Recently, the lead USG agency in these matters (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, aka NTIA) affirmed the USG Internet numbering principles, including that it recognizes ARIN as the RIR for this region and is supportive of the policies agreed upon by the Internet technical community through ARIN for the region. <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/united-states-government-s-internet-protocol-numbering-principles> Community-based Internet self-governance means exactly that, not that policies which are inconvenient don't apply. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions in this matter, whether on this list or one of the ARIN lists if you prefer. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:54 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Community-based Internet self-governance means exactly that, not that policies which are inconvenient don't apply.
... which is why I've emphasized repeatedly in the discussion that there is nothing fundamentally wrong about a mismatch in transfer policies between the regions, other than the fact that it would mean additional discussion in both regions about the value of alignment and options for getting there. RIPE should feel free set transfer policy that applies to resources in its region, but I'd recommend against developing policy based on a belief that ARIN policies don't apply to resources in its region, as the outcome will not match expectations. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Hi, On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 02:17:00PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:54 AM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
Community-based Internet self-governance means exactly that, not that policies which are inconvenient don't apply.
... which is why I've emphasized repeatedly in the discussion that there is nothing fundamentally wrong about a mismatch in transfer policies between the regions, other than the fact that it would mean additional discussion in both regions about the value of alignment and options for getting there.
RIPE should feel free set transfer policy that applies to resources in its region, but I'd recommend against developing policy based on a belief that ARIN policies don't apply to resources in its region, as the outcome will not match expectations.
Be assured, we don't do RIPE region policy based on ARIN beliefs. This was just a quite interesting and enlightening side-track discussion (even though I'm still missing an answer to the question what ARIN is going to do if a pre-ARIN address space holder without a contract with ARIN decides to sell their address space to a RIPE member). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 26/03/2013 13:54, John Curran wrote:
Actually, the US Government at the formation of ARIN stated exactly that: "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region." <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>
that was said by the NSF, which described itself as "an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education" at the bottom of that press release. Nothing particularly to do with USG, and it would be extraordinary to claim that this press release endowed any legal status.
Community-based Internet self-governance means exactly that, not that policies which are inconvenient don't apply.
My understanding is that ARIN's authority over legacy resources has not been tested in a federal district court. Until it's reached some firm conclusion, I'd be circumspect about authoritatively claiming authority. Please correct me if I'm wrong here because I don't pay too much attention to arinland numbering politics. Otherwise, I wish you well policing those legacy holders who feel that they are not inclined to sign the LRSA. Nick
On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 26/03/2013 13:54, John Curran wrote:
Actually, the US Government at the formation of ARIN stated exactly that: "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region." <http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>
that was said by the NSF, which described itself as "an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education" at the bottom of that press release. Nothing particularly to do with USG, and it would be extraordinary to claim that this press release endowed any legal status.
NSF was the USF agency which issued and provided oversight to the InterNIC award performing these exact same functions (and additional ones related to DNS) in the Internet's early years.
Community-based Internet self-governance means exactly that, not that policies which are inconvenient don't apply.
My understanding is that ARIN's authority over legacy resources has not been tested in a federal district court. Until it's reached some firm conclusion, I'd be circumspect about authoritatively claiming authority.
I am describing clearly _ARIN's_ position and how we operate the registry. There are certainly a few courts in the US (and just a few lawyers ;-) but Gert asked what the "InterNIC" stated at ARIN's formation, and so I answered. As I've said before, it's relevance to RIPE policy development is likely questionable, and I'd be happy to address these topics on the ARIN mailing lists if that's preferred. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On 26/03/2013 15:06, John Curran wrote:
I am describing clearly _ARIN's_ position and how we operate the registry.
I understand you have a position...
There are certainly a few courts in the US (and just a few lawyers ;-)
...but none of these courts have actually ruled in favour of your position, correct? Nick
On Mar 26, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
...but none of these courts have actually ruled in favour of your position, correct?
Actually, that is incorrect. We have had a ruling from federal district court and it upheld our position in being able to manage number resources in accordance with the policy in the region. I would not call 100% definitive ruling because it was not based on hearing of the potential fullness of the topic but instead limited by the specific legal circumstances. We've also been heavily involved in bankruptcy courts with respect to number resource transfers, and all of these have been resolved in compliance with the number resource policy developed by the community in the ARIN region. You may find references to these cases in the following article: <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfers/mwe_internet_article010512.pdf> I will reiterate for avoidance of any doubt and to bring this back to the topic at hand: the RIPE community should feel free set any transfer policy that applies to resources in its region, but I'd recommend against developing policy based on a belief that ARIN policies don't apply to all resources in the ARIN region, as the outcome will not match expectations. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN p.s. I expect some of the RIPE folks have now had more than their dose of legal fun for the day and would suggest followups to ARIN ppml or ARIN discuss (but obviously will remain available as a resource if folks really want to continue the discussion on the RIPE address-policy-wg list...)
* John Curran
I will reiterate for avoidance of any doubt and to bring this back to the topic at hand: the RIPE community should feel free set any transfer policy that applies to resources in its region, but I'd recommend against developing policy based on a belief that ARIN policies don't apply to all resources in the ARIN region, as the outcome will not match expectations.
Hi John, Let me reassure you that 2013-03 was not written with any particular understanding of ARIN's "jurisdiction" in mind, one way or the other. 2013-03 doesn't really concern itself with extra-region matters. The "legal" status of legacy space and how the RIRs should deal with it is certainly an interesting topic, and not only in the ARIN region; such a discussion is ongoing in the RIPE region too, cf. proposal 2012-07. However, I consider that this topic is not really germane to the discussion of 2013-03. Fortunately, I have not seen anyone making arguments in favour of, or in opposition to, 2013-03 based on an opinion of the status of legacy space in the ARIN region. So I don't think we have anything to worry about in this regard - the PDP can handle the discussion of a proposal side-tracking into off-topic topics once in a while. After all, this is a public mailing list, so I don't think we can expect anything else. :-) Best regards, -- Tore Anderson
On 26/03/2013 18:57, John Curran wrote:
I will reiterate for avoidance of any doubt and to bring this back to the topic at hand: the RIPE community should feel free set any transfer policy that applies to resources in its region, but I'd recommend against developing policy based on a belief that ARIN policies don't apply to all resources in the ARIN region, as the outcome will not match expectations. [...] p.s. I expect some of the RIPE folks have now had more than their dose of legal fun for the day and would suggest followups to ARIN ppml or ARIN discuss (but obviously will remain available as a resource if folks really want to continue the discussion on the RIPE address-policy-wg list...)
John, I think this is very much germane to apwg even though it doesn't relate to 2013-03. Are you talking here about RIR resources which are formally transferred to ARIN, or resources from other RIRs which are transferred or deployed somewhere in the ARIN service region, but still administered by those other RIRs? Nick
On Mar 27, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
... I'd recommend against developing policy based on a belief that ARIN policies don't apply to all resources in the ARIN region, as the outcome will not match expectations.
John, I think this is very much germane to apwg even though it doesn't relate to 2013-03. Are you talking here about RIR resources which are formally transferred to ARIN, or resources from other RIRs which are transferred or deployed somewhere in the ARIN service region, but still administered by those other RIRs?
By "in the ARIN region", I meant resources _in the ARIN registry_ This is common practice, i.e., I believe that each RIR administers resources in their registry per the policies which are developed by their community's processes. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On 27/03/2013 12:11, John Curran wrote:
By "in the ARIN region", I meant resources _in the ARIN registry_
This is common practice, i.e., I believe that each RIR administers resources in their registry per the policies which are developed by their community's processes.
ah, ok. What you said initially could have been interpreted differently. Just wanted to clarify. Nick
On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 27/03/2013 12:11, John Curran wrote:
By "in the ARIN region", I meant resources _in the ARIN registry_
This is common practice, i.e., I believe that each RIR administers resources in their registry per the policies which are developed by their community's processes.
ah, ok. What you said initially could have been interpreted differently. Just wanted to clarify.
Agreed (and good to clarify...) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:34 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 27/03/2013 12:11, John Curran wrote:
By "in the ARIN region", I meant resources _in the ARIN registry_
This is common practice, i.e., I believe that each RIR administers resources in their registry per the policies which are developed by their community's processes.
ah, ok. What you said initially could have been interpreted differently. Just wanted to clarify.
Agreed (and good to clarify...) Thanks! /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
I must say this has been a very interesting discussion to follow. Good to get a feel and see how other RIRs are thinking so to speak. thanks for being part of the discussion and adding another view to the table:-) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
-----Original Message-----
NSF was the USF agency which issued and provided oversight to the InterNIC award performing these exact same functions (and additional ones related to DNS) in the Internet's early years.
And here is what the General Counsel of the NSF said about this: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/09/22/its-official-legacy-ipv4-addres...
answered. As I've said before, it's relevance to RIPE policy development is likely questionable, and I'd be happy to address these topics on the ARIN mailing lists if that's preferred.
Apologies from me, too for sidetracking RIPE needs assessment policy based on an internal ARIN tussle. But....he started it! ;-)
On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
NSF was the USF agency which issued and provided oversight to the InterNIC award performing these exact same functions (and additional ones related to DNS) in the Internet's early years.
And here is what the General Counsel of the NSF said about this: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/09/22/its-official-legacy-ipv4-addres...
Apologies to the RIPE community. Milton is referencing a letter which was followed up by the same person noting that it just his observations and not the US government position as NTIA is authoritative in these matters - <https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/NSF-Rudolph-ARIN-7NOV2012.pdf> NTIA subsequently issued the USG's Internet Protocol numbering principles, as I noted earlier, including that it recognizes ARIN as the RIR for its region and is supportive of ARIN's policies. Milton hasn't apparently updated his blog based on this withdrawal. The full set of letters involved (with references) may by found at the bottom of this page: <https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/index.html> FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
John, you are really flirting with outright misrepresentation of the facts. The NSF letter expressed a detailed legal opinion of the counsel who represents the organization that made the legacy allocations. He did not "withdraw" his opinion, he simply stated that it was his legal opinion and not a US government position. But absent legislation, or a court ruling that contradicts the NSF Counsel's decision, the "position" of the NTIA is quite irrelevant. NTIA has no legislative authority and no judicial authority. It can express US government policy, but it cannot dictate law. You know this as well as I. So here is the real score: - We have one legal opinion that ARIN has no authority over legacy holders - We have NO legal opinions that support ARIN's claim of authority over legacy holders. - We have no court decisions that conclusively rule that ARIN does have authority over legacy holders. - We have a broad statement from NTIA which does not directly address that issue.* Those are the facts. Best to leave it at that. * The NTIA statement says only that Regional Internet Registries (RIRS) are responsible for IP address policy development (an uncontested fact); that ARIN is the RIR for North America (another fact) and that the USG "is supportive of the policies, processes, and procedures agreed upon ... through ARIN." This statement completely sidesteps the issue of whether ARIN has authority over legacy holders. See the IGP blog discussing the principles here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/06/ntias-meaningless-numbering-pri...
-----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:13 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Nick Hilliard; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
NSF was the USF agency which issued and provided oversight to the InterNIC award performing these exact same functions (and additional ones related to DNS) in the Internet's early years.
And here is what the General Counsel of the NSF said about this: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/09/22/its-official-legacy-ipv4- address-block-holders-own-their-number-blocks/
Apologies to the RIPE community. Milton is referencing a letter which was followed up by the same person noting that it just his observations and not the US government position as NTIA is authoritative in these matters -
<https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/NSF-Rudolph-ARIN- 7NOV2012.pdf>
NTIA subsequently issued the USG's Internet Protocol numbering principles, as I noted earlier, including that it recognizes ARIN as the RIR for its region and is supportive of ARIN's policies. Milton hasn't apparently updated his blog based on this withdrawal.
The full set of letters involved (with references) may by found at the bottom of this page: <https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/index.html>
FYI, /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Mar 26, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
John, you are really flirting with outright misrepresentation of the facts.
Milton - I understand that you may hold to different views (and I respect your right to do so) but it would be appreciated if you could seek to have professional level of dialogue. We definitely don't agree as to the "facts", but in the above, you seem to go beyond and imply that I am speaking to something other than that which I know to be true, which would be a rather serious accusation. If you have any doubt about my veracity at any time, please feel free to contact the ARIN Board with your concerns for prompt attention regarding my removal <https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html> To best of my knowledge, everything I've stated is correct; I stand willing to swear to it (and likely will have an opportunity to do exactly that some point...)
The NSF letter expressed a detailed legal opinion of the counsel who represents the organization that made the legacy allocations. He did not "withdraw" his opinion, he simply stated that it was his legal opinion and not a US government position.
Incorrect, as a "legal opinion" has a well-known meaning, that being the explanation of a ruling issued by a court or agency, and by its very definition is indeed a US Government position if issued by an agency. The "observations" (the term Mr. Rudolph's uses to describe his USG disavowed letter) of an individual attorney do not constitute a "legal opinion", and particularly not when they are not the position of his agency. Note - this probably a good thing considering the quality of the work involved... I'd recommend folks review ARIN's response here <https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/ARIN-Rudolph-NSF-18OCT2012.pdf> which notes the failure to consider NSF's own statement of work for the InterNIC at the time, its facile treatment of rights and policies per existing RFCs which predated ARIN, and related oversights in the logic from the NSF GC's letter of "observations" and "beliefs"
But absent legislation, or a court ruling that contradicts the NSF Counsel's decision, the "position" of the NTIA is quite irrelevant.
"Decision"? His views did not constitute a decision (or even a position) of any part of the US Government, whereas the NTIA statement is most certainly an official position. I concur that its not a legal opinion, but it was not intended to be one. It simply states it is the official US Government position to be supportive of ARIN and its policies.
So here is the real score: - We have one legal opinion that ARIN has no authority over legacy holders - We have NO legal opinions that support ARIN's claim of authority over legacy holders.
We'll need to agree to disagree on the above "facts", as you call them, since there is real disagreement over whether a letter issued by a US agency General Counsel that expresses no ruling (and then once contested then gets clarified to be simply his observations and beliefs) somehow constitutes a letter of "legal opinion", by any known use of the term.
- We have no court decisions that conclusively rule that ARIN does have authority over legacy holders.
We have multiple courts who have ordered that ARIN is not required to take any action in violation of ARIN’s Policies nor is it required to apply a different standard to the transfer of legacy versus non-legacy Internet Protocol numbers. (In re Borders Group, Inc., 11-10614 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), In re Teknowledge Corporation; 10-60457 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.) and Global NAPS, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., etc.) Whether those orders are conclusive to a judge remains to be determined; I am neither lawyer nor judge and don't presume to know that outcome.
- We have a broad statement from NTIA which does not directly address that issue.*
Agreement on this one - as you noted, a statement of US Government position from an agency are not law, so it should not be surprising that the statement cannot directly address what you may perceive to be a potential legal issue. It is simply a statement of official US Government position to be supportive of ARIN and its policies in management for number resources in the region (that was issued after the clarification by the NSF GC that his letter suggesting otherwise was simply his "observations" and "beliefs" and definitely not any position of the US Government.) Based on the full set of facts above, ARIN has no concern operating the registry according to the policies set by the community in our region; actually, our most likely risk would come from failing to apply the policies to all number resources consistently. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN p.s. Apologies again to those in the RIPE region; tl;dr is that ARIN will apply policies to all resources in the region, and that point may be relevant when considering inter-RIR implications of policies developed on this mailing list.
Actually, the US Government, at the formation of ARIN stated exactly that: "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region."
to paraphrase others, yes, you certainly have a voice. to those who are not facile english speakers, this does not imply that john's assertion has actual legal weight. it is a tragedy that arin places power above the good of the internet. randy
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:15 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Actually, the US Government, at the formation of ARIN stated exactly that: "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region."
to those who are not facile english speakers, this does not imply that john's assertion has actual legal weight.
Actually, it was NSF's statement, but your point holds true. In the end, the legal weight of such statements will likely be determined though judges making case law. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
participants (12)
-
Gert Doering -
John Curran -
McTim -
Milton L Mueller -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sander Steffann -
sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com -
Sascha Luck -
Scott Leibrand -
Tore Anderson