Re: [sig-policy] Forwarded reply from Gordon Bader

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

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@ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827