Re: [sig-policy] Forwarded reply from Gordon Bader
GB wrote:
> Hi Jeff and Everyone,
>
> That is why I tried to keep this proposal short, simple and direct,
> which is directly linked to
> the RIR's (in this case APNIC's) primary charter. If APNIC (or any RIR)
> has the ability to
> allocate IP space to carriers/ISP, then they have the ability to remove
> authorization for its use.
Maybe and maybe not. Have you heard of restraint of trade? In
addition remember that if such IP addresses are reallocated than
the routing tables of other ISP's will be effected to a degree, accordingly
creating another problem that may end up being bigger than the one
of Dark address space being considered for reallocation from
a ISP that has misused it.
>
>
> The last set of questions and answers proves the point. The only
> thing that counts is the
> ability to produce revenue. Remove the ability to produce revenue and
> suddenly you have
> the carriers/ISP's complete and un-divided attention. You also have the
> attention of their
> law department and any law firm they can hire and that just might work
> in the communities' favor.
Yes and you will almost surely find that the RIR taking such an action
would find itself facing a restraint of trade legal action that could expand
to a massive joint class action suit, especially if it would involve a large
ISP such as ATT, Worldcom/con/MCI, AOL, ect... So they may
consider playing legal chicken. And with their rather well connected
and large lobbyists in DC and elsewhere outside the US you might find
that game a bit of too high stakes for the effort...
>
>
> By arguing that the carrier/ISP lost its address space due to
> routing unallocated IP addresses
> is a strong argument that if they comply with the routing policies that
> apply to everyone, then there
> would not be a problem.
Not really, see above comments as to why not.
>
>
> In the US, driving a car is not a right. Similarly, a carrier/ISP
> does not have a right to IP
> space, they had to apply for it and it had to be allocated to them.
This depends on who you are and what kind of legal talent you can
afford or are willing to afford.
> By
> abusing the allocation,
> they can loose the allocation, and with it the ability to produce
> revenue. The one thing they
> understand is loss of their revenue.
Again it depends on how much revenue and what other options that
the infraction can negotiate or introduce.
>
>
> Is this simplistic, yes - but has anything else worked so far?
Yes it is simplistic but of questionable legal basis as well as enforceable
once challenged even if not successfully legally challenged the first few times
successfully...
>
>
> To date the RIRs have operated on a consensus basis. That is
> wonderful for a positive
> environment. However, this positive consensus operating basis is being
> used against the
> community by the people who have allocated to themselves something that
> does not belong
> to them.
Agreed, but once allocated the organization to which the resource
has been allocated to soon begins to believe it has the right to
manage that resource as it feels of believes it should be, thereby
nearly believing that the resource is their property...
> They have done this because no entity is able to do anything
> negative to them.
Very true. And is at the crux of the problem. APNIC also itself
suffers from this same attitude, BTW.
>
> Therefor, the community must somehow adopt a position that will do
> something negative
> to these scofflaws either directly or indirectly. Since they did not
> come to the RIRs or
> anyone for their IP address space assignment - they are vulnerable in
> the IP space.
Not really, again see my comments above...
>
> They just arranged for routing by some non policy means. Thus,
> essentially the only recourse
> the RIRs have is by having the entity performing the routing to dark
> space, stop routing.
Not the only recourse, no. Several other methods which I have presented
a few, could also be used to encourage ISP's to manage their IP space
in a manner that serves the community in a positive way...
>
>
> You can try to fine the carriers/ISP - what $1 a day, $1,000 a day,
> a $1,000,000 a day
> so that the larger companies will actually feel some pain. They will
> never pay because the
> RIRs were never setup to fine anyone. Thus the only real recourse is to
> remove what you
> (the RIRs) initially granted - IP space.
Yes RIR's alone cannot set or collect fines. That is why RIR's are not
the proper entity alone to be responsible for penalties of infractions.
Hence they need a governments direct involvement, which as far as I
know now, they do not wish to consider.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Gordon
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >Gordon and all,
> >
> > The short answer is: surely there is. And several ideas have been floated
> >that were not in a proposal format that MAY garner stakeholder/user
> >support. However they may NOT garner APNIC questionably legitimate
> >leadership. Hence the crux of RIR's policy development dilemma..
> >
> >GB wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Jeff,
> >>
> >> So is there a more effective proposal that can be crafted and
> >>presented that would garner sufficient
> >>support to be adopted?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Gordon
> >>
> >>Jeff Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>GB, Joe and all,
> >>>
> >>>GB wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi Jeff,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you very much for publishing the additional information. The
> >>>>3 week period I referred to was just that one example that I had at hand
> >>>>and did not want to cite anything longer because I did not have a
> >>>>concrete example, just in case I was asked to provide additional
> >>>>documentation. I also wanted to give the carriers the "benefit of
> >>>>doubt" that they try to do a reasonable job at table maintenance.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> First off, you welcome GB. Secondly, the carriers have been given
> >>>the benefit of the doubt far to long and have yet to belly up to the bar
> >>>for various reasons that may be very good ones to each carrier itself
> >>>form a business and investor return standpoint. However, regulation
> >>>that is thoughtful, enforceable and in as well as by the public interest
> >>>is, and has been needed for a number of years now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> In all honesty, I submitted the proposal to generate some thought
> >>>>within the community on the problem and possible solutions. I do
> >>>>realize that the various local legalities (local to the ISPs and various
> >>>>carriers) as well as the previously cited international and trade
> >>>>concerns create a very difficult landscape for such a proposal as this
> >>>>to have any traction at all, especially with the drastic economic impact
> >>>>that it carries. Coupling the various legalities, trade, economic
> >>>>realities together, you wind up with a nearly insurmountable problem,
> >>>>especially for a proposal that is rather simple and drastic in nature.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> No problem IMHO is insurmountable IF any and all interested parties
> >>>are truly willing to first recognize the problem, can adequately identify
> >>>the aspects of the problem, and are willing to address the problem
> >>>in earnest.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Given all of this, I ask the community, how else other than
> >>>>sanctions that carry drastic economic consequences will such large
> >>>>carriers (as well as smaller ISPs) essentially be forced to police
> >>>>themselves?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Our members answer is that there at this juncture and after all these
> >>>years, none. The more relevant question might be: How can enforceable
> >>>global policies/regulations be developed that meet the current and perhaps
> >>>changing over time, needs of all of the interested and effected parties?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Has the servicing of dark space become a "cost of doing
> >>>>business", and if so, what happens when it's growth creates a situation
> >>>>that cannot be ignored?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> No and to address such a problem is one that needs government and
> >>>the private sector regulated policy solutions that are again enforceable and
> >>>may carry serious financial or other penalties if violated or reported and
> >>>found in a short period for review, also enforced to the letter if so provided
> >>>for in such determined policies/regulations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Does the community just legitimize the practice
> >>>>and go forward?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Of course not! It would be unlikely presently to determine if the
> >>>community, depending on how one defines "The Community", if
> >>>such a practice has or is being legitimized...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>SPAM traffic now consumes well over 60% of email
> >>>>traffic. Will we have a "controlled" area of IP space that co-exists at
> >>>>some level with "uncontrolled" space - an extension of what we have
> >>>>now?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Controlling IP space is not the problem, but controlling how IP
> >>>space is utilized is...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>What happens when a new allocation is made that takes away
> >>>>someone's use of dark space that they have been "using" for a
> >>>>substantial period of time. Will they claim legal ownership under
> >>>>something similar to real estate's "Adverse Possession"?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Legal ownership is being claimed for Domain names now, even
> >>>TLD's are now owned due to ICANN's error in judgment. How
> >>>far away are we from ownership of IP addresses?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I would also like to ask something that I touched on before. Has
> >>>>APNIC considered a test in that they would officially request that XYZ
> >>>>(i.e., ATT, MSN, MCI, AOL, etc.) to return it's property (the
> >>>>unallocated IP address space). Essentially, by routing a dark space
> >>>>address, the service in question, is denying APNIC the control of it's
> >>>>property that it needs back under it's control for authorized legal
> >>>>allocation. A cease and desist order for lack of a better description.
> >>>>It might be an interesting attempt. I would think that say ATT for
> >>>>example, would have a difficult time denying APNIC's request to return
> >>>>(stop routing a dark space address), when its own IP address allocation
> >>>>has been derived from an RIR.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Why would they?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>What recourse would APNIC have if such a
> >>>>request were either ignored or refused outright?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Currently APNIC could suggest other of it's "Customers"
> >>>block all of ATT's IP's. Pretty weak...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>With regards,
> >>>>Gordon
> >>>>
> >>>>Jeff Williams wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>GB and all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>ATT has been routing and utilizing dark address space for at least 3 years
> >>>>>that I can document, not mearly 3 weeks. Worldcom/con/MCI has been
> >>>>>doing so for longer than 4 years that I can document. AOL has been doing so
> >>>>>for longer than 6 years that I can document. And MSN has been doing so
> >>>>>for a little more than 4 years that I know of.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Hence I cannot in good faith, agree with your comment or opinion that
> >>>>>"Most if not all carriers, I believe attempt to perform a good job keeping
> >>>>>their tables current and clean."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I believe that Dr Batista, myself and others on other verious forums going
> >>>>>back at least 4 years have pointed this out to Worldcom/con/MCI as well
> >>>>>as ATT before.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>GB wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> >"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> > Pierre Abelard
> >
> >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> >===============================================================
> >Updated 1/26/04
> >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> >IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
> > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> >Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827