ARIN-PPML Message

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

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:08 PM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> 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:
>>>
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> follow.
>
> 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
> case.
>
> 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 to.
>
>> This proposal would begin to achieve that result.
>
> I'd rather it wouldn't. About face, forward march, and all that.
>
> best regards
>
> John Springer
>
>> 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
>> cents.
>>
>> --
>> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
>> jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
>> Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
>> First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>

John,

I don't intend to presume that ARIN has authority over legacy holders,
but it does have a certain level of control over what services can or
should be provided to those organizations.

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions