[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal):GlobalPolicyfor IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion- LastCall (textrevised)
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:57 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> Owen said:
>> IMHO, targeting legacy holders for non-compliance with today's
>> ARIN policies is dubious at best. I agree we should seek to actively
>> reclaim abandoned resources (resources where the ORG no
>> longer exists). I think we should possibly reach out and request that
>> ORGs no longer using their legacy resources voluntarily return
>> Legacy holders received their resources under very different
>> requirements with very different expectations. While ARIN is the
>> successor registry of record, legacy holders (other than LRSA
>> signatories) have no agreement with ARIN and never agreed
>> to be bound by the ARIN policy process. I think attempting to
>> take such resources is an almost certain path to very costly
>> litigation with a very uncertain outcome. There are better things
>> for ARIN to do with their legal budget, IMHO.
> In the case where the original legacy holder is still the owner of that
> space, I would agree. If the space involved has been "sold" or
> otherwise transferred to someone else since ARIN came about, I would
> argue that the only expectation the current holder has is being out of
> reach of ARIN policy just because the space was originally issued to
> someone else under a different policy.
Resources cannot be sold or transferred outside of the ARIN process
and I agree with you that would void the original holders rights.
> I would support the original entity's right to use (or not use) those
> addresses for whatever purpose they wanted. The problem comes in with
> legacy space that is no longer under the control of the original holder
> of it. It would seem to me that once those resources leave the control
> of the original holder, that policy expectation should no longer apply.
That space is either abandoned or has been transferred outside of
ARIN policy. In either case, yes, reclamation is justified.
>> What we don't have is any form of agreement by the legacy holders
>> that the ARIN definition of justified applies to them. Non-signatories
>> to the LRSA are, thus, in an uncertain area. Signatories of the LRSA
>> are clearly protected from current and future ARIN policies in this
> But what about people who aren't the original legacy holder that have
> obtained those resources since ARIN has come about? Why are they exempt
> from current policy? Why does holding certain IP address space place
> you into a "wayback" machine to decades ago in policy?
I don't think that's what anyone was talking about here.
>> I agree that ARIN has a moral obligation to legacy holders.
>> I am uncertain about what legal obligations ARIN has to legacy
> What about non-legacy holders of legacy space?
To the best of my knowledge, No such thing as far as ARIN is
concerned. If the original holder of the space isn't holding it any more,
then, it is abandoned.
>> I think that involuntary reclamation of legacy resources or
>> "termination of
>> services" to legacy holders is contrary to ARIN's best interests. I
>> think that
>> going beyond "termination of services" to the step of placing
>> back into the free pool and issuing them to other organizations would
>> be outright counter-productive for all concerned (except in the case
>> clear abandonment).
> It should have been the policy of ARIN that resources transferred out of
> the control of the original holder of them revert to community control
> via ARIN. That horse left the barn long ago but it might not be too
> late to implement such a policy. Legacy space no longer under the
> control of the original holder would immediately come under the same
> policy as any other space and would require the same transfer
> requirements as any other space from now going forward. In other words,
> the current holder would be ok to use them but if they wish to transfer
> that space or if they go defunct, it comes under the current ARIN
That has always been the policy of ARIN other than under section 8
which allowed for transfers in light of merger and acquisition (now
section 8.2) and the recent (2009-1) addition of section 8.3 to allow
certain other forms of transfers.
There is no provision and has never been any provision for a transfer
to occur without subjecting the recipient of the transferred resources
to an RSA for those resources.
> While there is a strong argument that as the original holder of the
> space did not have any transfer restrictions and so it was fine for them
> to transfer the space to someone else, continuing that practice today
> for entities that might be several times removed from that legacy holder
> seems odd. The only thing connecting a current recipient of that space
> with the legacy agreement is the numbers in the block itself. I say
> that numbers cannot be held to this or that agreement and have no
> expectations, they are just numbers. People and entities of people can
> have expectations but once that legacy holder no longer owns those
> resources, the only expectation a current owner has is "I can do
> whatever I want with these because these numbers are above the rules".
> I don't think that expectation is healthy for the community.
I believe the original terms and conditions did restrict transfer.
Therefore, I think the rest of the paragraph is even further off the rails.