On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))
RIPE Policy Folks - I have no comments to make with regards to the merits of policy proposal 2012-01, but will comment for sake of clarity on the use of the words "sell" and "sold" in the proposal. In the policies in the ARIN region, we have made use of the term "transfer" for this purpose, although one can argue that "sell" and "sold" is equally accurate. The challenge with using the word "sell" is simply that for many readers it carries the connotation of 'free and clear' transfer of property to another. I do not know, (nor intend to assert) what transfer of number resources in the RIPE region means, but in the ARIN region we hold that there are multiple parties with rights to each number resource, and this includes the resource holder (who has the right of exclusive use) but also includes the community (who has the right of visibility into the public portion of the registration, the right to set policies by which the resource may be transferred or reclaimed, etc.) We've had parties come to ARIN and indicate that they have "bought" or "sold" their address blocks, and we have to point out that they may indeed have sold their particular rights to the address block, but that any transfer in our region must comply with the community policies, and ask that they put a transfer request (agreed to by the seller) so that we may transfer the number resources to the new registrant. In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy text may create the impression for some readers that Internet number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as desired, but that error is may be unavoidable in any case given the circumstances. I do not believe that the use of "sell" or "sold" is incorrect, but simply of question of personal judgement as to whether the improved readability is worth the connotations that some readers will draw as a result. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On 04/04/2012 05:03 PM, John Curran wrote:
region must comply with the community policies, and ask that they put a transfer request (agreed to by the seller) so that we may transfer the number resources to the new registrant.
this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. the problem is not that space is transfered. the problem is that the seller assumes that he has the (absolute) power over it, that it is his own, even if the requirements that lead to the allocation or assignment to him isn't valid anymore. a transfer (being a redistribution without ripe) is just as well as a redistribution with ripe - if and only if the conditions are identical. auctioning this off corrupts this principle. actually, talking about a sparse resource, it has to be returned to the pool if it isn't needed anymore.
In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy text may create the impression for some readers that Internet number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as desired,
for a reallity check i'd suggest to read http://ipv4marketgroup.com/
but that error is may be unavoidable in any case given the circumstances. I do not believe that the use of
if a person gets a wrong idea, this is to be avoided, but i don't see a vital problem here. if it's erroneously formally put in writing, that'd be a real problem. regards, Chris
On Apr 4, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Chris wrote:
On 04/04/2012 05:03 PM, John Curran wrote:
In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy text may create the impression for some readers that Internet number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as desired,
for a reallity check i'd suggest to read http://ipv4marketgroup.com/
Actually, there's a longer list of such folks available here: <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> All of them agree to ARIN's registration services agreement, including compliance with the number resource policies in the region. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
[I've already given my statement - considering that as 'side-track' discussion more or less] Hi,
On 04/04/2012 05:03 PM, John Curran wrote:
region must comply with the community policies, and ask that they put a transfer request (agreed to by the seller) so that we may transfer the number resources to the new registrant.
this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. the problem is not that space is transfered. the problem is that the seller assumes that he has the (absolute) power over it, that it is his own, even if the requirements that lead to the allocation or assignment to him isn't valid anymore. a transfer (being a redistribution without ripe) is just as well as a redistribution with ripe - if and only if the conditions are identical. auctioning this off corrupts this principle. actually, talking about a sparse resource, it has to be returned to the pool if it isn't needed anymore.
well, at first, just to state the obvious once more a) For RIR-managed resources... ...this is basically true. b) For pre-RIR resources... ...RIR policies cannot be applied. Anyone can really sell this stuff, they seem to really own those. But of course this is not covered by this policy then anyways. I just want to point out that your assumption is not 100% true right now already :-) (And there is plenty of this pre-RIR stuff out there)
In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy text may create the impression for some readers that Internet number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as desired,
for a reallity check i'd suggest to read http://ipv4marketgroup.com/
The question here is if we would like to have a controlled open market or an uncontrolled black market. Any transfer of any RIR resources SHOULD be needs based, following existing policy. But in a mostly business driven internet, in a mostly marked based economy today, it's really hard to explain why one shouldn't be able make money out of a scarce resource. Since i've stated (here and on multiple occasions throughout the years) that i tend to support non-commercial entities' point of view, i would prefer an equal-rights approach, too. But i doubt there is room for a global policy supporting this. Nowadays, i'm thinking more like - screw that, IPv4 is over, get IPv6 in this special case. There are working transition technologies by now. As long as the receiving end still has to show they need the resources like anyone has to today, i don't care much anymore if there is money involved in the process. There is IPv6, let those who are stupid pay the price for being stupid.
but that error is may be unavoidable in any case given the circumstances. I do not believe that the use of
if a person gets a wrong idea, this is to be avoided, but i don't see a vital problem here. if it's erroneously formally put in writing, that'd be a real problem.
The wording of the proposal is bad in general, but what to expect from "marketing guys and girls" :-) I've already stated my own concerns about that, all this adds up to me not supporting this proposal in this current form. But i might not object to the idea in general. Especially inter-RIR transfers should be allowed in general, without a doubt. But different conditions. (Someone please hit me with a stick if inter-RIR transfers are already possible by some existing policy i now forgot because no one ever used it. I only remember the ERX transfer project right now, which was a one-timer (IMHO), but as usual i may be 100% wrong) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:28:11PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote:
But in a mostly business driven internet, in a mostly marked based economy today, it's really hard to explain why one shouldn't be able make money out of a scarce resource.
I'm generally opposed to a market-based approach because the commodification of a commons will almost inevitably lead to abuse and to the players trying to cling on to IPv4 even longer. I can even foresee a situation where someone with a "valuable" ipv4 allocation could take an injunction to stop the roll-out of ipv6 because it would devalue their "investment". And yes, they will find a judge stupid or corrupt enough to decide so, especially in NL if I look at what the likes of BREIN get away with in the courts... rgds, Sascha Luck
On Apr 5, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Sascha Lenz wrote:
[I've already given my statement - considering that as 'side-track' discussion more or less] ... well, at first, just to state the obvious once more
a) For RIR-managed resources...
...this is basically true.
b) For pre-RIR resources...
...RIR policies cannot be applied. Anyone can really sell this stuff, they seem to really own those.
That may be regional difference (or not), as in the ARIN region we run a single registry with a single set of policies which apply to all resources. These policies not only include what fields (e.g. abuse poc) are present and publicly visible, but also policies that affect how resources may be transferred, subdivided, etc. We actively defend (including in courts as needed) ARIN's ability to operate the registry accordingly to the policies developed by our community, and have never been directed to change the registry contrary to these policies. If your 'obvious' statement is true for RIPE, then it is likely something which has been established on a regional basis. I do not know if that affects consideration of the 2012-01 proposal but note it for sake of clarity. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:16 AM, John Curran wrote:
well, at first, just to state the obvious once more
a) For RIR-managed resources...
...this is basically true.
b) For pre-RIR resources...
...RIR policies cannot be applied. Anyone can really sell this stuff, they seem to really own those.
That may be regional difference (or not), as in the ARIN region we run a single registry with a single set of policies which apply to all resources.
Which is, of course, not particularly relevant to the question of whether resources can be bought or sold. It is only relevant to whether or not ARIN will update their registry to reflect reality in their "single registry". It would seem ARIN has decided that accuracy of registration data is secondary to conformance to "consensus" policy. I hope RIPE does not follow ARIN down that particular path as such an approach would appear to strongly encourage the proliferation of registration information databases which will undoubtedly result in challenges in network operations. I do not believe registration information databases should be used as a weapon to try to force compliance to policy. Regards, -drc
On Apr 5, 2012, at 3:50 PM, David Conrad wrote:
It would seem ARIN has decided that accuracy of registration data is secondary to conformance to "consensus" policy. I hope RIPE does not follow ARIN down that particular path as such an approach would appear to strongly encourage the proliferation of registration information databases which will undoubtedly result in challenges in network operations.
So far it hasn't been a problem, but that's best a discussion for mailing lists back in the ARIN region. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Sascha Lenz wrote:
[...] I only remember the ERX transfer project right now, which was a one-timer (IMHO),
Correct, the goal was to rectify some artefacts, caused by (Internet-)History and to move the registration data to the "correct" one of the 3 RIRs. The process was managed collectively by the RIRs, thus not on a voluntary basis of a particular resource holder. And, there was no financial implication (in the sense of being compensated or charged).
but as usual i may be 100% wrong)
I guess not in this case :-) Wilfried
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
Sascha Lenz wrote:
[...] I only remember the ERX transfer project right now, which was a one-timer (IMHO),
Correct, the goal was to rectify some artefacts, caused by (Internet-)History and to move the registration data to the "correct" one of the 3 RIRs.
Of course that should have been "one of the *5* RIRs"! Blush, Wilfried
The process was managed collectively by the RIRs, thus not on a voluntary basis of a particular resource holder.
And, there was no financial implication (in the sense of being compensated or charged).
but as usual i may be 100% wrong)
I guess not in this case :-)
Wilfried
participants (6)
-
Chris -
David Conrad -
John Curran -
Sascha Lenz -
Sascha Luck -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet