[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks
On the off chance that I'm the John to whom you refer there is an inline
comment, if not, please pardon the intrusion.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com> wrote:
>>> Specific to this proposition, I find it fundamentally flawed that I
>>> have to pay for something that another receives for free merely
>>> because they got in first.
>> For years, ARIN mostly ignored legacy resource holders so legacy resource holders mostly ignored ARIN.
>> Not long after I joined the ARIN Policy mailing list, there was a big flap about how legacy resource holders were not paying their fair share of the ARIN costs. I went off to the ARIN web site and could not find any way for a legacy resource holder to voluntarily bring their resources under ARIN's control. So I ranted a bit about how the evil legacy resource holders were not taking advantage of some unavailable mechanism to pay their fair share.
>> I think this discussion (about July, 2007) was some of the impetus for the creation of the LRSA. The LRSA was initially released in November, 2007, a bit over three years and three months ago. Since then, ARIN has been working to get legacy resource holders to buy into the LRSA, but this is an ongoing process.
>> How does this proposal benefit you other than somehow sticking it to the legacy resource holders who are receiving services for free?
> Keith, John, et al,
> I have no ill will toward legacy holders and I completely understand
> that the actual cost of providing free services is negligible. My
> concern is more principle in nature. If someone is operating IP
> resources in the ARIN region they should be compelled to pay the same
> fees that we all must pay and follow the rules that we all must
The difficulty arises in that the legacy allocations under discussion
predate ARIN and ARIN does not appear to have ascended to authority over
them by its creation. I will be happy to be corrected if this is not the
I hope that "...they should be..." won't be enough to change that and
"they should not be" might be enough to prevent it.
I don't have any legacy space. If legacy holders, for what reason seems
good to them, don't want to sign an LRSA, I don't think they should have
> This proposal would begin to achieve that result.
I'd rather it wouldn't. About face, forward march, and all that.
> With that said, I did not sponsor this proposal nor do I have a
> significant dog in this fight. I'm merely expressing my point of view
> that I agree with the proposal for the sake of putting in my two
> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
> jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
> Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
> First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.