[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

I've just reviewed the clarification order.  There are some problems. I
note that ASN 11083 (block 5 on Kremen's documents) was under ARIN's
control in 2001. ARIN transferred this block to LACNIC in 2002, _while_
it was under order to transfer it to Kremen.  Plzak's statement that it
isn't under ARIN's control really should be challenged. I note that
ASN's 11082 and 11084 are still in ARIN's hands, so this wasn't simply
swept up in a larger block of numbers, but was individually transfered
in _spite_ of the court order.  Well, that's snarky: transfer it to
LACNIC so it can't be given to Kremen. There is a legal term for that, I
think.  The Court should be informed of this. The transfer to LACNIC
really should be invalidated.

The court says "Kremen may sign his choice of (1) RSA mirroring the
terms and conditions of ARIN's agreement with Cohen (RSA 2);"

RSA 2 would be the legacy form. (Essentially, nothing but the name and
address). So, ARIN should just change the name and address, as Kremen
requests.

While the court found that 2 blocks don't have to be transfered (AS11083
and an IP block belonging to UUnet apparently just used by Cohen),
Kremen won again:  ARIN has to give Cohen's legacy terms to Kremen, if
Kremen wants them (and he does).

Yet, ARIN still refuses to comply, and by its refusal, harms Kremen
further.  ARIN knows that it ultimately has no choice but to comply. Its
dispute is not based on any principle but on obstinance.  Just like
Exactis v. MAPS, where MAPS lawyer was chastised for coming to court the
frivolous claim that the First Amendment permitted violation of the
Sherman Act and extortion, etc.  It is perhaps telling that Paul Vixie
is involved in both of these two frivolous disputes. (Vixie was CEO of
MAPS, and is a board member of ARIN)

There is no policy or principle that is being defended by ARIN. Neither
Kremen, nor the Court, are demanding any policy change on ARIN.  ARIN
just has to do for Kremen exactly what it did for Cohen. ARIN's
continued dispute and refusal is just frivolous.  Therefore, greater
penalties on ARIN are very appropriate.  That is a proper and just
result, to everyone but the anarchists.

More inline.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> 
> (Search for RYAN to find his words)
> -----
> We received the order approximately two years after it had been issued.

The court found otherwise, and found that Kremen had been negotiating 
with ARIN for 5 years between 2001 and 2006.

> It was provided to us in a formal way, and Mr. Kremen asked us to obey
> the order. That is, to revoke the IP resources that were held by Mr.
> Cohen and transfer them to Mr. Kremen. We agreed to do so, so long as
> Mr. Kremen would do what all of you have done since ARIN began in 1998,
> which is apply for the resources and sign the normal RSA. 

In fact, and the court held, Mr. Kremen can't be held standards that
didn't apply to Mr.  Cohen, and don't apply to other legacy holders. If
Cohen didn't sign a current RSA, neither should Kremen. The court cites
3 RSAs (at Kremen's choice) that are appropriate. The Court included the
one Kremen has wanted: the legacy agreement.

ARIN wants Kremen to agree to _new_ terms, and ARIN's lawyer incorrectly
describes Kremen's as not wanting to agree to _any_ terms.  The court
has repeatedly, now, said that ARIN has to give Kremen the same terms it
gave Cohen (the legacy terms: basically, name and address).  ARIN is
refusing to do that.

> Mr. Kremen refused to do that and has refused to the current date. His
> theory is that he doesn't have to do that because he has a court
> order, and our theory is that we have a certain set of rules and
> requirements, and that you have to obey the rules and requirements of
> the community, and we don't read the court order as giving Mr. Kremen
> a permanent pass from the rules that all of you obey. ... We revoked
> resources that were held by Mr. Cohen or his associates that were
> covered by the 2001 order when they were not paid for. In other words,
> by our own processes, we were very aggressively trying to recover
> these resources so that they weren't out there. ... 

ARIN can't claim that _Cohen_ didn't pay on the block after 2001,
because thats during the dispute. The 'payment' argument was already
rejected, by the way.

> First, we've gone back to the court and said that the court in its
> 2001 order ought to consider modifying the order to make it clear that
> Mr. Kremen, like everyone else, has to sign an RSA and has to pay for
> the resources in the future. ... One is that Mr. Kremen is a legacy
> address holder. He has legacy address blocks. -----

No such formal agreement was ever required of legacy holders. Nor is any
such agreement even now required of _current_ legacy holders.  Current
legacy holders have never signed a formal RSA, just the legacy
registration form, so there is no justification to force Kremen to do
more.  This is the basis of Kremen's suit, and Kremen has won
repeatedly.

What's more, its all a waste of ARIN resources to fight this. There is
no principle to be found here for ARIN. (except the principle of anarchy
and not submitting to court orders, which many people here do advocate,
but which isn't going to be useful in court)

ARIN can perform immediately: It can record Kremen as a legacy holder in
30 seconds, if it chooses to do so.  Its been ordered to make Kremen a
legacy holder. There is no justification for disobeying the court.


> It's all about an open and level playing field.

On that, we agree.


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000