From owen at delong.com  Wed Jul 21 02:14:38 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 23:14:38 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
Message-ID: <FB8CFE3D-C105-4F4B-9558-1943A08C9EEC@delong.com>

> The 732 customers who have over the past decade have entered into an LRSA with ARIN have done so for a variety of reasons:
> 
> - They?d like to have some clear legal documentation of their rights to the asserted entries in the ARIN registry 
> - They desire some newer services that ARIN does not provide except under RSA (e.g. RPKI) 
> - They wish to support ARIN as an organization and feel paying ?their share? is reasonable and customary

- They wanted to do the right thing in a time when it was fee per ORG for end users and a single ORG could have
both RSA and LRSA resources such that there was no additional cost to having both, so why not.

Unfortunately, the board actively worked to alter this circumstance and continues to make the situation worse
and worse for organizations who signed on this basis.

Owen



From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Jul 21 07:11:05 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:11:05 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <FB8CFE3D-C105-4F4B-9558-1943A08C9EEC@delong.com>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <FB8CFE3D-C105-4F4B-9558-1943A08C9EEC@delong.com>
Message-ID: <F395E940-C713-4BF9-95CD-8520C91612FB@arin.net>

On 21 Jul 2021, at 2:14 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> The 732 customers who have over the past decade have entered into an LRSA with ARIN have done so for a variety of reasons:
>> 
>> - They?d like to have some clear legal documentation of their rights to the asserted entries in the ARIN registry 
>> - They desire some newer services that ARIN does not provide except under RSA (e.g. RPKI) 
>> - They wish to support ARIN as an organization and feel paying ?their share? is reasonable and customary
> 
> - They wanted to do the right thing in a time when it was fee per ORG for end users and a single ORG could have
> both RSA and LRSA resources such that there was no additional cost to having both, so why not.

Mr. Delong ? 

ARIN is a member-based organization that is not static, but rather will naturally experience an evolution in the fees and services over time.  Organizations should expect to that changes will indeed occur ? and if the past is any predictor, then it appears that these changes trend towards fees that are more equitable across the entire ARIN community. 

> Unfortunately, the board actively worked to alter this circumstance and continues to make the situation worse
> and worse for organizations who signed on this basis.

It is true that ARIN has provided a number of disproportionate benefits to legacy resource holders over the years ? this includes decades of services without any fee or contract as well as providing special fees, terms and conditions for those who enter into a formal registration services agreement with ARIN.   However, it has been more than twenty years since ARIN?s formation and it should not be a surprise to anyone that disproportionate fees for some customers are increasingly under discussion by ARIN community, as it is the community that (through the member-elected Board and related consultations) ultimately determines what are the most appropriate fees and services. 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers





From bill at herrin.us  Wed Jul 21 12:07:25 2021
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:07:25 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:14 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult
<arin-consult at arin.net> wrote:
> - They wanted to do the right thing in a time when it was fee per ORG for end users and a single ORG could have
> both RSA and LRSA resources such that there was no additional cost to having both, so why not.
>
> Unfortunately, the board actively worked to alter this circumstance and continues to make the situation worse
> and worse for organizations who signed on this basis.

Hi Owen,

You tricked yourself. A legal contract means exactly what it says.
Only a fool relies on the good will of the opposing party to make it
mean something more.

Like the RSA, the LRSA demands the registrant cede virtually all of
the power in the registrant relationship to ARIN. You can't even claim
contract of adhesion because unlike normal registrants you faced no
compulsion to sign.

An uncontracted legacy registrant has certain rights at common law.
It's not perfectly clear what those rights are but it is perfectly
clear what your rights are if you sign the LRSA: none to speak of.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Jul 21 12:38:03 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 16:38:03 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>

On 21 Jul 2021, at 12:07 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> ...
> 
> An uncontracted legacy registrant has certain rights at common law.

Bill - 

	That?s an Interesting assertion indeed ("An uncontracted legacy registrant has certain rights at common law.?) ? given the lack of determinations to that effect, you?ve entered some rather speculative territory. 

	Regarding rights, it?s worth noting that all ARIN customers (whether RSA or LRSA, as those are the same at this point) have very clear rights that are spelled out in the agreement ? these include rights to be the exclusive registrant for their entries in the ARIN database, right of transfer in accordance with policies, etc.  Legacy resource holders do have some distinguishing aspects - e.g. they cannot be charged registration fees that exceed those charged to comparable non-legacy holders.  You may not appreciate the rights provided, but they are present and delineated in the registry agreement. 

	Where you are correct is the statement that ARIN maintains substantial power in the overall agreement, but that?s because ARIN is actually the community?s own organization and operates under member-based model that allows the community to elect its own governing board?  this is far stronger than what what one receives from a more ?commercial" relationship.  In fact, one of the more significant benefits to moving to uniform fees for registry customers is precisely focused on that point, in that it allows us to open up ARIN governance and voting to all those IPv4 and IPv6 registry customers who wish to participate. 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




From bill at herrin.us  Wed Jul 21 17:15:19 2021
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:15:19 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:38 AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>         That?s an Interesting assertion indeed ("An uncontracted legacy registrant has certain rights at common law.?) ? given the lack of determinations to that effect, you?ve entered some rather speculative territory.

Speculative beats zero.

Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?
I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From athompso at athompso.net  Wed Jul 21 17:32:54 2021
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 16:32:54 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>

On 2021-07-21 16:15, William Herrin wrote:
> Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
> risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
> sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?
> I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
> an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
> with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.

I would like to point out that in this regard, I do not believe ARIN is 
accurately representing its members' interests.  Perhaps the megacorps 
that dominate this industry like every other do enjoy the current 
status, but I know both I, and many other smaller registrants I've 
spoken over the years, would much prefer that jurisprudence exists, even 
if it's unfavourable.

Losing flexibility is a problem, but living in fear is also a problem, 
and not knowing the real legal status of things like "can legacy 
registrants claim any rights over IP addresses" is (i.e. not just what 
the [L]RSA says), is also a problem.  Contracts are not law, and do not 
have the force of law, until tested.

-Adam


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Jul 21 17:34:04 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 21:34:04 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <342D2DA3-B1C1-4323-A995-4FE8E30A0B5D@arin.net>

On 21 Jul 2021, at 5:15 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:38 AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
       That?s an Interesting assertion indeed ("An uncontracted legacy registrant has certain rights at common law.?) ? given the lack of determinations to that effect, you?ve entered some rather speculative territory.

Speculative beats zero.

Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?

<chuckle> There are not a lot of folks willing to argue in a court that they have some hypothecated rights to ARIN?s registry database ? particularly after the USG facilitated transition and specifically indicated that "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region.?  <https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>

I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.

Incorrect - ARIN has consistently defended our position that ARIN?s registry database will only be changed in accordance with community-developed policy ? it?s an inherent portion of why we were established, as noted above.

In the case of Norte/Microsoft, the parties agreed to condition the sale on compliance with ARIN?s policies and Microsoft?s entry into an RSA with ARIN ? ARIN concurred only after this condition was established
Reference [In re Nortel Networks, Inc., No. 09-10138, KG 2011 WL 110098, Docket # 5315, at 4 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011) (assignee?s interest limited to exclusive right to use)]

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20210721/23ed9f3c/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Jul 21 17:42:17 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 21:42:17 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <7C724D1F-F0C7-49B7-BD36-C2FBE0FAA865@arin.net>

On 21 Jul 2021, at 5:32 PM, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2021-07-21 16:15, William Herrin wrote:
>> Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
>> risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
>> sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?
>> I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
>> an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
>> with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.
> 
> I would like to point out that in this regard, I do not believe ARIN is accurately representing its members' interests.  Perhaps the megacorps that dominate this industry like every other do enjoy the current status, but I know both I, and many other smaller registrants I've spoken over the years, would much prefer that jurisprudence exists, even if it's unfavourable.

Adam - 

	ARIN would welcome clarity here as well, both for the organization and our members sake, but alas, we cannot create a strawman dispute - it requires an actual party to pursue their creative theories to conclusion in litigation. 

	The suggestion that ARIN doesn?t seek legal certainty in these matters is quite absurd, as many aspects of operation would become simpler (and regardless of the specific outcome.) 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From bill at herrin.us  Wed Jul 21 20:08:52 2021
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 17:08:52 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <342D2DA3-B1C1-4323-A995-4FE8E30A0B5D@arin.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <342D2DA3-B1C1-4323-A995-4FE8E30A0B5D@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGW2rnwQhApKvKvdOk07MSdLU8SUa7kJuhaU_moywe-XJQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 2:34 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> <chuckle> There are not a lot of folks willing to argue in a court that they have some hypothecated rights to ARIN?s registry database ? particularly after the USG facilitated transition and specifically indicated that "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region.?  <https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>

Hi John,

Not a lot of folks indeed. But if you encounter one, I recommend
against employing this bit of sophistry before a judge. If ARIN's all
about the community of IP address users then it's the community's
database, not ARINs. As the monopoly steward of the community's
database, you may find ARIN has legal obligations to accuracy
regardless of whether it has a contractual basis for enforcing other
policies. Or that monopoly product tying between stewardship of
database accuracy and stewardship of resource management is not
allowed.

In the meantime, reserving the right to make that argument and more in
court is frankly more valuable than the de facto null rights granted a
registrant under the LRSA. In my opinion.


> In the case of Norte/Microsoft, the parties agreed to condition the sale on compliance with ARIN?s policies and Microsoft?s entry into an RSA with ARIN ? ARIN concurred only after this condition was established

The policies at the time called for the recipient of the sale to enter
into "the" RSA, not "an" RSA. Moreover, it called for the legacy
registrant to sign the LRSA, then initiate a specified transfer to the
new registrant who would receive them under the RSA following a
successful justified needs analysis. Did I miss the part where the
Nortel bankruptcy trustees signed the LRSA on Nortel's behalf? As near
as I could tell, Microsoft directly became the registrant under the
LRSA bypassing the formal transfer step from one contracted party to
another.

ARIN smoothed the path.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From jcurran at arin.net  Wed Jul 21 20:27:04 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 00:27:04 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGW2rnwQhApKvKvdOk07MSdLU8SUa7kJuhaU_moywe-XJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <342D2DA3-B1C1-4323-A995-4FE8E30A0B5D@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGW2rnwQhApKvKvdOk07MSdLU8SUa7kJuhaU_moywe-XJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B08E0295-347C-4A1F-B995-A66B6CDC8775@arin.net>

On 21 Jul 2021, at 8:08 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:

Not a lot of folks indeed. But if you encounter one, I recommend
against employing this bit of sophistry before a judge. ?

Bill -

ARIN has been before many judges successfully without any concerns, so your legal advice is best saved for others.

The policies at the time called for the recipient of the sale to enter
into "the" RSA, not "an" RSA.Moreover, it called for the legacy
registrant to sign the LRSA, then initiate a specified transfer to the
new registrant who would receive them under the RSA following a
successful justified needs analysis. Did I miss the part where the
Nortel bankruptcy trustees signed the LRSA on Nortel's behalf? As near
as I could tell, Microsoft directly became the registrant under the
LRSA bypassing the formal transfer step from one contracted party to
another.

We?ve actually been through this discussion before - suffice to say that this is well-covered in the archive.
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068136.html>

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20210722/5745624e/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Thu Jul 22 01:01:14 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:01:14 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <BB9C259D-EE82-4444-804F-41A272D480F9@delong.com>



> On Jul 21, 2021, at 14:32 , Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2021-07-21 16:15, William Herrin wrote:
>> Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
>> risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
>> sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?
>> I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
>> an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
>> with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.
> 
> I would like to point out that in this regard, I do not believe ARIN is accurately representing its members' interests.  Perhaps the megacorps that dominate this industry like every other do enjoy the current status, but I know both I, and many other smaller registrants I've spoken over the years, would much prefer that jurisprudence exists, even if it's unfavourable.
> 
> Losing flexibility is a problem, but living in fear is also a problem, and not knowing the real legal status of things like "can legacy registrants claim any rights over IP addresses" is (i.e. not just what the [L]RSA says), is also a problem.  Contracts are not law, and do not have the force of law, until tested.

It?s a lot more complicated than that and I can speak much more freely since June 8.

The simple fact of the matter is that reliance on the RIR system for uniqueness of addresses is entirely voluntary and the fact that most ISPs adhere to that system is the only thing that gives it power.

If a sufficient critical mass of major ISPs decided to wrest control from the RIR system, they could do it in a heart beat simply by creating their own registry and adhering to that instead of the RIR system.

The RIR system has no basis in law and no legal authority over what integers any given individual types into any given router. They even make this very clear when they tell you that your RIR's allocation/assignment is not guaranteed to be routable.

The whole thing is a giant house of cards and the only thing that keeps it from collapsing is that they behave just well enough that the alternatives are all too much disruption for too little gain.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Thu Jul 22 01:08:16 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:08:16 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <342D2DA3-B1C1-4323-A995-4FE8E30A0B5D@arin.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <342D2DA3-B1C1-4323-A995-4FE8E30A0B5D@arin.net>
Message-ID: <E1B9D1E7-5356-4ACE-902B-86F4B65DA047@delong.com>



> On Jul 21, 2021, at 14:34 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On 21 Jul 2021, at 5:15 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:38 AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>>>        That?s an Interesting assertion indeed ("An uncontracted legacy registrant has certain rights at common law.?) ? given the lack of determinations to that effect, you?ve entered some rather speculative territory.
>> 
>> Speculative beats zero.
>> 
>> Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
>> risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
>> sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?
> 
> <chuckle> There are not a lot of folks willing to argue in a court that they have some hypothecated rights to ARIN?s registry database ? particularly after the USG facilitated transition and specifically indicated that "Creation of ARIN will give the users of IP numbers (mostly Internet service providers, corporations and other large institutions) a voice in the policies by which they are managed and allocated within the North American region.?  <https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819 <https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102819>>
> 
>> I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
>> an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
>> with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.
> 
> Incorrect - ARIN has consistently defended our position that ARIN?s registry database will only be changed in accordance with community-developed policy ? it?s an inherent portion of why we were established, as noted above. 

Really? Shall we discuss the blatant disregard for the rules of Provider Allocation Units with ISPs issuing very small blocks to residential customers?

> In the case of Norte/Microsoft, the parties agreed to condition the sale on compliance with ARIN?s policies and Microsoft?s entry into an RSA with ARIN ? ARIN concurred only after this condition was established 
> Reference [In re Nortel Networks, Inc., No. 09-10138, KG 2011 WL 110098, Docket # 5315, at 4 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011) (assignee?s interest limited to exclusive right to use)]

Of course, the justification of needs submitted by Micr0$0ft remains secret, so the community is left to imagine whether it passed the smell test or not (without seeing it, anything I can imagine does not pass the smell test despite your repeated assurances otherwise). However, I admit to limits to my imagination, like the way I never imagined the board would use a change in the entire structure of fees as a workaround to bypass the expectations they had been using as a selling point for the LRSA. Lesson learned, but I?ll continue to call that a scam since it was a clear bait and switch from my perspective. Not saying it was illegal. Not saying you?re outside the letter of the contract. But I will say that it felt a lot like bad faith to me at the time and it still does.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20210721/dfc64f4f/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Thu Jul 22 01:10:30 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:10:30 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <7C724D1F-F0C7-49B7-BD36-C2FBE0FAA865@arin.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
 <7C724D1F-F0C7-49B7-BD36-C2FBE0FAA865@arin.net>
Message-ID: <DD22A948-00AD-4C2B-850D-4FCC9DDE179F@delong.com>



> On Jul 21, 2021, at 14:42 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On 21 Jul 2021, at 5:32 PM, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net <mailto:athompso at athompso.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2021-07-21 16:15, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
>>> risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
>>> sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?
>>> I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
>>> an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
>>> with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.
>> 
>> I would like to point out that in this regard, I do not believe ARIN is accurately representing its members' interests.  Perhaps the megacorps that dominate this industry like every other do enjoy the current status, but I know both I, and many other smaller registrants I've spoken over the years, would much prefer that jurisprudence exists, even if it's unfavourable.
> 
> Adam - 
> 
> 	ARIN would welcome clarity here as well, both for the organization and our members sake, but alas, we cannot create a strawman dispute - it requires an actual party to pursue their creative theories to conclusion in litigation. 

Revoke a /8 without an LRSA for non-payment and see what happens. I?m pretty sure you will get the dispute you claim to seek and I?m pretty sure that the registrant will likely pursue their claims to its litigious conclusion absent some form of significant compromise from ARIN.

> 	The suggestion that ARIN doesn?t seek legal certainty in these matters is quite absurd, as many aspects of operation would become simpler (and regardless of the specific outcome.) 

It doesn?t look so absurd from my perspective.

Owen

> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20210721/91606156/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Jul 22 02:21:36 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:21:36 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <DD22A948-00AD-4C2B-850D-4FCC9DDE179F@delong.com>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
 <7C724D1F-F0C7-49B7-BD36-C2FBE0FAA865@arin.net>
 <DD22A948-00AD-4C2B-850D-4FCC9DDE179F@delong.com>
Message-ID: <EA7AC54C-DC6E-4DA3-A107-5F73D8DBF256@arin.net>

On 22 Jul 2021, at 1:10 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

ARIN would welcome clarity here as well, both for the organization and our members sake, but alas, we cannot create a strawman dispute - it requires an actual party to pursue their creative theories to conclusion in litigation.

Revoke a /8 without an LRSA for non-payment and see what happens. I?m pretty sure you will get the dispute you claim to seek and I?m pretty sure that the registrant will likely pursue their claims to its litigious conclusion absent some form of significant compromise from ARIN.

Revocation for non-payment would first require establishing a requirement for payment for registry services by non-contracted legacy holders ? a requirement that does not presently exist.

At some point we may see litigation over whether ARIN has a requirement to provide services without fee or contract to such parties (or for that matter, whether such parties with ?IP address blocks? have some magical right to update corresponding portions of ARIN?s registry database despite lack of contract), but that hasn?t happened yet in more than two decades of registry administration by ARIN.  There is no need for true believers to wait to test such assertions, but I concur that it?s far more likely to occur at some point in the future when there are substantial resources involved.

Will we ever see such a dispute? It certainly is possible, but if we do it will be the result of uniform application of a change applied across the entire registry rather than an act designed to foment dispute ? your assertions aside, we strive to operate ARIN in a highly consistent manner as befitting a key element of Internet infrastructure.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20210722/e9931a64/attachment.htm>

From daveid at panix.com  Thu Jul 22 07:06:49 2021
From: daveid at panix.com (David Huberman)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 07:06:49 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <E1B9D1E7-5356-4ACE-902B-86F4B65DA047@delong.com>
References: <E1B9D1E7-5356-4ACE-902B-86F4B65DA047@delong.com>
Message-ID: <B7F33372-DE7E-4353-BBBC-FC54965659CE@panix.com>

Hiya!

> On Jul 22, 2021, at 1:08 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> Of course, the justification of needs submitted by Micr0$0ft remains secret, so the community is left to imagine whether it passed the smell test or not (without seeing it, anything I can imagine does not pass the smell test despite your repeated assurances otherwise). 

I arrived at Microsoft in May 2013 and found that they were at 97% utilization of their entire IPv4 holdings on my first day. They bought the Nortel space because they were out of the fairly small amount of space they had been assigned over the years directly, and they were rolling out the first phases of Azure, which both needed a lot more space than they had, and which quickly proved successful.  

David

From athompso at athompso.net  Thu Jul 22 10:39:04 2021
From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 09:39:04 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <BB9C259D-EE82-4444-804F-41A272D480F9@delong.com>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
 <BB9C259D-EE82-4444-804F-41A272D480F9@delong.com>
Message-ID: <C07B6708-3613-415D-8E0E-5E3E178C1DB9@athompso.net>

Yes, I agree, but so what?  There are MANY things in daily life, or affecting daily life, that turn out to be governed by assumptions, working consensus, "gentlemen's agreements", and community norms, instead of being regulated under the force of law.
ARIN and the entire NRO system is hardly unique, or even special, in this regard.  We follow the RIR model because it's easier to do that than to fork the entire internet.
-Adam

On July 22, 2021 12:01:14 a.m. CDT, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 21, 2021, at 14:32 , Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2021-07-21 16:15, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
>>> risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
>>> sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?
>>> I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
>>> an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
>>> with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.
>> 
>> I would like to point out that in this regard, I do not believe ARIN is accurately representing its members' interests.  Perhaps the megacorps that dominate this industry like every other do enjoy the current status, but I know both I, and many other smaller registrants I've spoken over the years, would much prefer that jurisprudence exists, even if it's unfavourable.
>> 
>> Losing flexibility is a problem, but living in fear is also a problem, and not knowing the real legal status of things like "can legacy registrants claim any rights over IP addresses" is (i.e. not just what the [L]RSA says), is also a problem.  Contracts are not law, and do not have the force of law, until tested.
>
>It?s a lot more complicated than that and I can speak much more freely since June 8.
>
>The simple fact of the matter is that reliance on the RIR system for uniqueness of addresses is entirely voluntary and the fact that most ISPs adhere to that system is the only thing that gives it power.
>
>If a sufficient critical mass of major ISPs decided to wrest control from the RIR system, they could do it in a heart beat simply by creating their own registry and adhering to that instead of the RIR system.
>
>The RIR system has no basis in law and no legal authority over what integers any given individual types into any given router. They even make this very clear when they tell you that your RIR's allocation/assignment is not guaranteed to be routable.
>
>The whole thing is a giant house of cards and the only thing that keeps it from collapsing is that they behave just well enough that the alternatives are all too much disruption for too little gain.
>
>Owen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20210722/2cf63c89/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Thu Jul 22 11:04:29 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 08:04:29 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <C07B6708-3613-415D-8E0E-5E3E178C1DB9@athompso.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
 <BB9C259D-EE82-4444-804F-41A272D480F9@delong.com>
 <C07B6708-3613-415D-8E0E-5E3E178C1DB9@athompso.net>
Message-ID: <4223CBB1-912D-40CD-A93B-6A0BCC840CD2@delong.com>

Sure, but lots of people repeatedly talk about ARIN (and other RIRs) as if their policy is law.

I think it is important for the community to remember and be aware fo the true status and the
actual power structure rather than assume that the RIRs are some form of governmental
authority.

I don?t want governmental authority in charge of numbering (which would most likely take
the form of an ITU takeover of the process), but I do want people to be aware of the
true balance of power in that if an RIR oversteps its role as a registry too far or becomes
too egregious in its actions, the community of those who control routers is utterly and
completely free to replace it and there is precious little that ICANN or the RIRs would
be able to do about it.

I do not think things have reached that point and I am not advocating forking the internet
at this time, but I also don?t think it is a good idea to let misunderstandings of this true
nature stand, either.

Owen


> On Jul 22, 2021, at 07:39 , Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I agree, but so what? There are MANY things in daily life, or affecting daily life, that turn out to be governed by assumptions, working consensus, "gentlemen's agreements", and community norms, instead of being regulated under the force of law.
> ARIN and the entire NRO system is hardly unique, or even special, in this regard. We follow the RIR model because it's easier to do that than to fork the entire internet.
> -Adam
> 
> On July 22, 2021 12:01:14 a.m. CDT, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2021, at 14:32 , Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2021-07-21 16:15, William Herrin wrote:
> Unless you're planning to change ARIN's quarter-century practice of
> risk aversion toward letting cases proceed to the point where a court
> sets a precedent about the shape of the pre-ARIN registrants' rights?
> I know Owen remembers how far ARIN bent in Microsoft/Nortel to reach
> an agreement, any agreement, rather than let the court set precedent
> with respect to what it could do with Nortel's legacy registration.
> 
> I would like to point out that in this regard, I do not believe ARIN is accurately representing its members' interests.  Perhaps the megacorps that dominate this industry like every other do enjoy the current status, but I know both I, and many other smaller registrants I've spoken over the years, would much prefer that jurisprudence exists, even if it's unfavourable.
> 
> Losing flexibility is a problem, but living in fear is also a problem, and not knowing the real legal status of things like "can legacy registrants claim any rights over IP addresses" is (i.e. not just what the [L]RSA says), is also a problem.  Contracts are not law, and do not have the force of law, until tested.
> 
> It?s a lot more complicated than that and I can speak much more freely since June 8.
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that reliance on the RIR system for uniqueness of addresses is entirely voluntary and the fact that most ISPs adhere to that system is the only thing that gives it power.
> 
> If a sufficient critical mass of major ISPs decided to wrest control from the RIR system, they could do it in a heart beat simply by creating their own registry and adhering to that instead of the RIR system.
> 
> The RIR system has no basis in law and no legal authority over what integers any given individual types into any given router. They even make this very clear when they tell you that your RIR's allocation/assignment is not guaranteed to be routable.
> 
> The whole thing is a giant house of cards and the only thing that keeps it from collapsing is that they behave just well enough that the alternatives are all too much disruption for too little gain.
> 
> Owen
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20210722/59665f4f/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Thu Jul 22 11:22:21 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:22:21 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <mailman.12880.1626966272.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
 <BB9C259D-EE82-4444-804F-41A272D480F9@delong.com>
 <C07B6708-3613-415D-8E0E-5E3E178C1DB9@athompso.net>
 <mailman.12880.1626966272.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
Message-ID: <B4595B15-E4F5-42D6-92F9-79B2B6E67E6A@arin.net>

On 22 Jul 2021, at 11:04 AM, arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net> wrote:

From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
Date: 22 July 2021 at 11:04:29 AM EDT
To: Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net<mailto:athompso at athompso.net>>
Cc: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>>, <arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>

Sure, but lots of people repeatedly talk about ARIN (and other RIRs) as if their policy is law.

I think it is important for the community to remember and be aware fo the true status and the
actual power structure rather than assume that the RIRs are some form of governmental
authority.

Indeed.  ARIN is simply an instantiation the community?s desire for mutual coordination of Internet number resources. Such coordination could be done via other means ? e.g. call up every other provider to see what?s in use, and then assign yourself whatever is free ? but such an approach becomes logistically challenging when number of the parties is large, hence a more centralized ?registry? approach.

I don?t want governmental authority in charge of numbering (which would most likely take
the form of an ITU takeover of the process), but I do want people to be aware of the
true balance of power in that if an RIR oversteps its role as a registry too far or becomes
too egregious in its actions, the community of those who control routers is utterly and
completely free to replace it and there is precious little that ICANN or the RIRs would
be able to do about it.

The predicate of your statement  (the existence of a consensus among f a significantly large portion of the community who control the routers) would presumably be equally capable of obtaining control of the RIR in question and directly addressing the relevant issues ? such an approach being far more predictable and having a higher chance of success than ?pushing the reset button? on the entire model...

I do not think things have reached that point and I am not advocating forking the internet
at this time, but I also don?t think it is a good idea to let misunderstandings of this true
nature stand, either.

I?m unclear what ?misunderstanding? you?re responding to - Adam himself said: "ARIN and the entire NRO system is hardly unique, or even special, in this regard. We follow the RIR model because it's easier to do that than to fork the entire internet.? ? suggesting nearly the very same point.

In any case, this entire thread has run far fast the point of being germane to discussion of ARIN suggestions and consultations, and I?d suggest we now return the mailing list to that purpose so that we don?t lose those who subscribe under that assumption.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20210722/1ea7686a/attachment.htm>

From bzs at theworld.com  Thu Jul 22 16:00:17 2021
From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com)
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:00:17 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees
In-Reply-To: <mailman.12838.1626930080.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
References: <B543EB55-2996-44F9-A41D-EED1C8BFE8E9@arin.net>
 <9d67fcee-5a6b-dc5f-9b16-82e798b3448f@wiktel.com>
 <51799316-9B60-4AFA-A54A-B00642C8BE8F@arin.net>
 <9e789354-a4da-5fba-7d47-4dee70e76803@wiktel.com>
 <8ADCC727-C7E5-4434-B788-7F22C2EC2774@arin.net>
 <mailman.12760.1626848085.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGXXZe+NtcPytNTKV_34VhWbvnxB1w1jr5GvmBOpKsfcUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <88DD4510-5782-4414-9F02-1C52A2E5F498@arin.net>
 <CAP-guGVLqPSr-P_1GwO0qA5BMPeh_ZEC4pRY5niRqU8ig_xBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <37b9ed0b0d63e2043f11ceec4e14d7fe@athompso.net>
 <mailman.12838.1626930080.8317.arin-consult@arin.net>
Message-ID: <24825.52817.633004.749638@gargle.gargle.HOWL>


On July 21, 2021 at 22:01 arin-consult at arin.net (Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult) wrote:
 > The whole thing is a giant house of cards and the only thing that keeps it from collapsing is that they behave just well enough that the alternatives are all too much disruption for too little gain.
 > 

Without weighing in one the actual issue isn't that basically how much
of life works?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*