[arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statementonLegacyassignments?(fwd)

> Not true.

well, actually, we could both be right.

> In December 2006, I wrote a letter to ARIN regarding the pricing
> discrepancies between "legacy" ip holders and ARIN's members.  ARIN replied
> that they did not have any authority over "legacy" ip holders.

a letter is not a policy proposal.  i havn't seen the letter or the response
but it sounds as if ARIN's management gave you a literally true answer, where
what you needed was a prospective answer.  to get a prospective answer, you
have to go to the members, or the public, rather than the management team.

(this follows from the fact that ARIN management studiously avoids taking any
position on the wisdom of policy proposals, other than according to the
difficulty of implementing them.  it's a good checks/balances system and i'm
somewhat mystified that RIR staff often authors proposals in other regions.)

> Clearly and legally, that has changed and so should the pricing.

i don't know if i agree with "clearly".  ARIN has the power to be useful, but
noone except the RFC2050-era IANA ever had the power to dictate terms to
legacy holders.  (and it's very much not "clear" that the RFC2050-era IANA
still exists, what with the subsequent creation of ICANN and ASO and NRO.)

the utility argument boils down to "what restrictions and fees are legacy
holders generally prepared to accept from ARIN and what rights and privileges
will they want in return?"  i believe that there is a middle ground between
the carrots and sticks here.  but i pretty much don't expect unilaterally
imposed terms, which means, in turn, that i pretty much don't expect "sin tax"
level fees from legacy holders.  this may mean that it's not possible to
incent conservation, or promote competition, using fee levels as a tool.  but
there are other worthy goals for ARIN, its members, and the legacy community,
to jointly pursue.