[ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN Fees

[Owen DeLong]

> 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>