[ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and LegacyRegistry

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Owen DeLong
>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:21 AM
>To: Dean Anderson
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] [arin-discuss] Legacy Legal Defense Fund and
>LegacyRegistry
>
>
>Defense from what?
>
>While there are a few people on the PPML and arin-discuss who have
>suggested various forms of fee structures and such, but, there hasn't
>been anything even close to consensus in favor of such a thing.
>

Such a group of legacy holders wouldn't even be able to gain consensus
to create an RFP for 5,000 tinfoil hats.

>I believe that the majority of ARIN members support the idea of outreach
>and desire to build a positive relationship with legacy holders working
>towards a situation where legacy holders join the ARIN fold and there
>is no longer a need for such a distinction.
>

A lot of legacy holders have BOTH legacy assignments and non-legacy
assignments.  And ANY legacy holder that has ANY IPv6 also has a foot
in both sides.

>Most legacy holders I talk to do not see the $100/year fee as a  
>significant
>issue.  Most do not have a significant issue with the idea of an RSA  
>which
>preserves their status quo.  I think both are feasible and I believe  
>that
>is what the majority of the ARIN community supports.

I do not agree.  I think that the majority of the community supports
legacy holder status on IPv4 ONLY.

I believe some of this smoke and mirrors is an attempt by certain people
to get legacy status applied to "IP numbering" in general, rather than
"IPv4 IP numbering" that is why they use such imprecise language all the
time, constantly blurring the distinction between IPv4 and IPv6 numbering.

If you look at ALL of Dean's responses to the subject you will find that
he NEVER uses the precise terms "IPv4 IP numbering" and "IPv6 numbering"
when referring to legacy holders.  When people point this out he ignores
it most of the time, the few times he responds it's along the line that
the definition of a legacy holder is an IPv4 holder - conveniently ignoring
that all the historical literature he's basing his arguments on is 
pre-IPv6 and thus DOES NOT draw a distinction either.

>
>As to an alternate registry, I think such an action is very premature  
>and
>unnecessary.  I also think that it would be unlikely to succeed or get
>buy-in from IANA or DOC, whichever one you choose to believe
>has theoretical control of said address space.
>

I really think the whole thing is preposterous.  I can think of many 
reasons that infighting, lack of legal jurisdiction in different regions,
the fact that many legacy holders would have to start paying twice -
once for IPv6 resources to ARIN and once to this alternate registry,
and the fact that an alternate would have no support from the existing
governing structure, would doom such an effort.  Keep in mind that
an alternate registry couldn't force ARIN to update it's whois - and
ARIN will not replace legacy WHOIS records to allow legacy numbers to
be sold to a new entity, that's against current policy.  The more you
think about it the more silly it becomes.

Just because it's possible to do something doesen't mean it's ever
going to happen.  I think Dean is confusing the possible with the
practical.

Ted