Orbit

On Aug 18, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

I came across a response to Mr. Vixie's article and thought it might be of interest to the APNIC community, particularly as it mentions pending IPv4 legacy address sales to Asian customers.

http://techliberation.com/2011/08/15/trading-ipv4-addresses-starts-making-in...

Mike -

I attempted to correct the factual errors in the article you reference but to no avail, so have since posted a reply to the original IGP blog (attached below)

FYI, /John

John Curran President and CEO ARIN

--- http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/8/15/4877516.html#comments

More factually challenged coverage of ARIN by Mr. Mueller... by John Curranhttp://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/8/15/4877516.html on Thu 25 Aug 2011 03:55 PM EDT | Profilehttp://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/8/15/4877516.html | Permanent Linkhttp://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/8/15/4877516.html#1511621 Apologies for the significant but unavoidable delay in responding to this blog entry. Coverage in the IGP blog of Mr. Vixie's article was quite expected (as it is important information for the community) but I had hoped that Mr. Mueller might correct the blog entry if I sent him the issues in private. Alas, the IGP blog doesn't subscribe to typical journalistic nor academic standards, so I will now set the record straight directly.

Mr. Mueller's asserts that "ARIN is worried", "ARIN is nervous", and that ARIN is trying to protect its position in the current Internet number registry system; all of these assertions are false. While Mr. Vixie was Chair of ARIN in 2010, his byline on the article in question is simply ""by Paul Vixie | July 20, 2011". Mr. Mueller was apparently confused by the biographical information which followed the article.

Mr. Vixie is an ARIN Board member. ARIN Board members are free to speak their views on Internet registry topics, but that does not imply consideration by the full board nor make it the views a position of ARIN. In fact, regarding this particular topic, ARIN does have a position on record which is contained our 2 March 2011 letter to ICANN - http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/curran-to-beckstrom-02mar11-en.pdf, which makes plain that we are quite comfortable with discussion of the structure of the Internet number registry system: "Despite ARIN’s appropriate rejection of the Depository request, I would ask that ICANN carefully review the Depository correspondence and consider the issues it raises with respect to the evolution of the Internet number registry system. While ARIN and the other Regional Internet Registries are obligated to follow the framework agreed to in ICP-2 and related guidelines such as the IETF’s RFC 2050, the structure of the Internet number registry system is substantially unchanged since inception. This stability in design is certainly a valued feature given the instrumental role of the Internet number registry system in reliable Internet operations, but may not be the optimum structure in light of the many changes taking place in the Internet today (including IPv4 depletion & IPv6 transition, internationalization of Internet multi-stakeholder oversight, and ongoing developments in cyber security.) ARIN would welcome an opportunity to participate in any and all discussions regarding how to best evolve the Internet number registry system, and would consider ICANN instrumental in leading such discussions in forums globally as appropriate."

Mr. Mueller was fully aware of this position (but sought not to include it in his "analysis") as I discussed it in detail on the very panel he moderated on this topic at the GIGNET conference just a few months ago. ARIN is quite willing to evolve as long as there is global multi-stakeholder discussion of the changes, and a result that reflects the public interest in this area.

Apologies for length but necessary, as Mr. Mueller's selective coverage does a disservice to those who want facts in order to seriously follow developments in Internet Governance.

Thank you, /John

John Curran President and CEO ARIN

On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:03 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

Mueller was making judgements when he said "ARIN is nervous" or "ARIN is protecting its interests." You protest too much when you call them factual errors and bemoan the journalistic standards of an opinion blog.

You are somewhat correct, in that I had inadvertently considered the Internet Governance Project blog to be part of an academic endeavor with corresponding practices. Indeed, I was recently informed otherwise, much to my surprise.

Mueller knows about the letter from ARIN to ICANN but judges it to be resistance-by-delay. You judge it as some kind of proof that ARIN is not nervous. Neither judgement rises to the level of fact.

Interesting... By asking for community discussion before changing the structure of the global Internet number registry system, ARIN is engaging in "resistance-by-delay"? If indeed there is some other way to engage in responsible Internet governance and make such a change without first having community discussions about them, please educate us.

I empathize with Prof. Mueller when his ideas are met with resistance at ARIN. Whereas he (and I) are trying to protect the integrity of the registration function by removing outdated and unnecessary needs requirements for transfers, we are both vociferously resisted by the damsel we are trying to rescue.

You are likely to referring to the ARIN community with regards to your proposals to change the registration function, and I cannot help you there, you (and Mr. Mueller) must advocate your ideas on their own merits.

I think we both understand this is a natural product of the byplay of a multi-stakeholder governed system, maybe you can understand the frustration we feel being cast as enemies of a system we are trying to save, and allow that understanding to provide more tolerance of the judgements of others.

I do not cast anyone as "enemies of the system", and both welcome and encourage your participation in the process. However, If you should find fault with ARIN, then I will either thank you & starting fixing it, or explain why we're doing what we're doing. In Mr. Mueller's case, he already knew exactly why and simply chose to ignore it.

As the APNIC meeting is coming up and that involves quite a bit of policy discussion on this list, I'll be cc'ing future replies to PPML instead (as this thread is regarding fabrications against ARIN.)

Thanks! /John

John Curran President and CEO ARIN