In a message written on Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 06:19:01PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> Not entirely, no. There's also a problem of underutilization and
> improper utilization of resources by post-1997 registrants. The
> canonical example is the bankrupt company that is no longer using the
> addresses at all but continues paying the annual fee.
There is a distinction I tried to make yesterday that I'm afraid
was lost on everyone, but your message gives me an opportunity to
be more clear.
I think it is important to separate abandoned resources from
under-utilized or miss-utilized resources. While I'm not sure the
eminent domain argument is squarely on point, I will note that in
most states abandoned property is treated totally different from
property being taken under eminent domain.
I think this is where John and I were talking past each other.
In the case of an abandoned resource there is in theory no other
party to harm. It is my contention ARIN doesn't need any policy
or ASCP input to go after these, staff should just do it. There
is a minor issue that it will require some detective work, which
is staff time, which is money, but we don't decide how to allocate
money in policy.
In any sort of under-utilized or miss-utilized case there is another
party to harm. John is absolutely right that if the ARIN community
wants ARIN to take action on these resources they need a clear
indication from the community o what "under-utilized" or "miss-utilized"
It is because of these differences I think we should act on them
separately. I think we can move on abandoned resources quickly,
with a much lighter weight process and that under-utilized or
miss-utilized resources will take a much longer process with lots
of community input.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available