ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks

Hi Benton,

'nother John to confuse things here. I regret to say that I oppose 
ARIN-prop-133.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Benson Schliesser wrote to John Santos:

> Hi, John.
>
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 2:08 PM, John Santos wrote:

-elided-

>> 4) What is the point of this?

I very much appreciate a policy proposer anwering this question (and 
thanks, Mr. Santos for asking it). I wish all proposers would as 
explicitly do so in their rationale.

> The point of submitting the proposal is to encourage discussion of how ARIN should treat legacy address holders.

Many legacy address holders without LRSAs that I have talked to are not 
much concerned about discussions of how ARIN should treat them, except 
with a sort of "Don't Tread on Me" sentiment. And while I am not one 
myself, I have some sympathy with that. I feel that "Leave them alone." is 
an acceptable policy with valid benefits to the community.

> The point of the policy proposal itself is to make it clear that ARIN 
> won't exercise authority (e.g. policy enforcement via the Whois) over
> anybody that hasn't requested it.

Er. If I am inverting out the negatives right, you propose that ARIN 
exercise authority over anybody (in the form of knocking out whois and 
rdns) who requests it (by not signing an LRSA).

> I believe that this is more legally viable than the current approach.

I hope you're mistaken.

> One additional comment, to clarify a misconception: The point of this 
> policy is not to "punish" legacy address holders that don't sign the 
> LRSA. It might have that effect for some, but I'm not sure how to avoid 
> it while developing policy that defines the relationship between legacy 
> holders and ARIN.  If anybody has suggestions for improving the policy 
> text in this regard, I'm happy to discuss it.

Yikes. I think I would rather it had been less clear. I am not in favor of 
punishing legacy address holders whether you call it that or pudding and I 
am not in favor of policy that might have that effect for some. We avoid 
it by, in particular, opposing this policy and not advancing it.

Developing policy that defines the relationship between legacy holders and 
ARIN will have to be forgone, in my opinion, if a side effect can be in 
any way construed as resembling a stick. It's just not called for.

regards

John Springer

>
> Cheers,
> -Benson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>