Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Thu Apr 23 20:54:10 UTC 2009

Apologies for a somewhat latent response - I was attending an IPv6
Seminar (of which ARIN was a sponsor) the last two days and am just
getting to nanog mail today.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 15:42, Shane Ronan <sronan at fattoc.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big
> cop out to me.
>
> A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4 resources,
> they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing potential solutions
> and start conversation rather then saying that the users should come up with
> a proposal which they then get a big vote one.

"They" is YOU.  ARIN policy is created by the community - "Your voice,
your community."  The statement should read: If [you] are so concerned
about the potential depletion of v4 resources, [you] should be taking
a more proactive [role] in proposing potential solutions and
start[ing] conversation.

If you participated in the ARIN PDP (1), even by just lurking on the
ppml (2), you would already be aware that many folks have proposed
many potential solutions (some of which have already been adopted) and
that there _is_ an ongoing conversation that I strongly encourage you
to join.

> B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group trusted
> with the management of the IP space at least have a public opinion about
> these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are designed is such a way
> to guarantee maximum adoption of v6 and thus reducing the potential for
> depletion of v4 space.

I think that developing resource management policy to meet those goals
is much more in line with ARINs mandate.  As I mentioned above, this
is happening.

> C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be
> interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's
> obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it is being
> spent in a reasonable manner, and the fees are where they need to be to
> sustain the organizations reasonable operations, but perhaps not.

Links to annual statements etc. have already been provided.  I am sure
an email to ARIN (3) would help you answer your question further.

> Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in particular
> the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will simply sign off on
> what they IT staff tells them (as they have little to no understanding of
> the situation), can you explain what exactly you are hoping to achieve by
> heaping on yet an additional requirement to the already over burdensome
> process of receiving an IPv4 allocation?

I obviously can not speak for Mr. Curran, but I do applaud this
effort.  I believe that adding this requirement will lower
exaggeration and fraud as well as raise awareness.  These are both
noble goals and well worth the marginal effort required.  The argument
that most officers will sign anything put in front of them is not very
convincing to me.  I have a hard time accepting incompetence or
laziness as a valid rational for any argument at all really.

~Chris (speaking for myself)

(1) - https://www.arin.net/knowledge/pdp/
(2) - https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/index.html
(3) - mailto:info at arin.net

>
> Shane Ronan
>
> --Opinions contained herein are strictly my own--
>
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:01 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>
>> Roger -
>>
>>   A few nits:
>>
>>   A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take
>>      action without the Internet community first making some policy
>>      on what action should be taken...  Please get together with folks
>>      of similar mind either via PPML or via Public Policy meeting at
>>      the the Open Policy Bof, and then propose a policy accordingly.
>>
>>   B) Technical standards for NAT & NAPT are the IETF's job, not ARIN's.
>>
>>   C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> Acting CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com