On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> 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.
Completely agree with you, and I think it would help prevent the same
confusion I was suffering under from afflicting other participants if
we split the two situations completely apart.
Abandoned resources, ones that are not currently routed/reachable, have
no reachable POCs, and have no fee-based mechanism for recovery should
have a policy defined for how to deal with them. They're a public nuisance,
like the abandoned car in the middle of the road, or the leftover unexploded
ordinance from a war long-past; they have a tendency to invite abuse or
Resources that are actively in use, but are suspected of being under-utilized
or mis-utilized is a totally separate issue, and one I have a great many more
reservations about. It becomes very, very difficult to determine the difference
between poor forecasting, weak business uptake, and intentional
or fraud. Going after Comcast with pitchforks because they got 8
but their sales people could only sell 2 million accounts is
ludicrous. That's not
fraud, that's simply optimistic sales projections--and show me *any* dot-com
from the late 90's that didn't have the same hockey-stick growth curve projected
into their sales forecasts. ^_^;
So...with that in mind, I'll raise my voice against the active witch-hunting of
members in good standing, but in favour of cleaning up abandoned resources
which have become a public nuisance. :)