[arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

[John Curran]

At 8:43 PM -0400 10/7/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>Perhaps I can rephrase the question into two clear parts:
>
>1. "Has ARIN Counsel made a definitive statement on the subject of
>ARIN's obligations to Legacy assignments?"

I believe this has been covered in detail:  Yes, to the effect
that there's no legal obligation.  This doesn't mean ARIN
doesn't have any obligation here, only that it is based on
the direction of the community more than any matter of law.

>2. "If yes, is Stephen Sprunk's report of such statement to IETF
>accurate?"

Stephen actually extracted from transcript of the last ARIN
meeting in San Juan, and it appears to be accurate from my
quick review.
 
>I think there is a strong argument, both morally and
>legally, that those prior assignments represent obligations on ARIN,
>from ARIN's inception, and that ARIN is compelled to continue to honor
>the terms of those assignments.  I'd say that's a legal issue, even if
>there isn't an active lawsuit on the subject.

ARIN's counsel seems to disagree on that topic, if by
"honor the terms of those assignments" you actually
mean "provide free services".  Note - I was the one
who asked the question to counsel, specifically to get
formally answered, since it has been asked from time
to time, and it's relevant to members and AC in their
deliberations on policy.

If the community determines that ARIN should provide
such services to legacy holders and directs accordingly,
then providing those services is an obligation.  That's
been to situation to date, and there is no reason that
it needs to change.

/John