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

[John Curran]

At 9:47 PM -0400 10/7/07, Dean Anderson wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:
> > >(Dean asks)
> > >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.
>
>A statement "to the effect of" means to imply something. That is not a
>clear definitive or formal statement.

I stand corrected: Counsel answered a question at the public
meeting on the matter of ARIN's ability to deny free services to
legacy holders and stated that it would be permitted in his
judgement as a matter of law.

Whether that was a clear, definitive, or formal statement for your
purposes I do not know, as it pertains specifically to the obligation
of providing of "free" registry services, and it was made before the
participants of our public policy meeting.

> > >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.
>
>Stephen seems to have extracted only the first half of the statement
>from the Meeting. Stephen's summary doesn't appear accurate from my
>review. In that statement, the lawyer goes on and states that he isn't
>sure of the constitutionality of what's being proposing, and states that
>he is still exploring legal theories. Since he hasn't even decided on a
>legal theory, it seems pretty clear he hasn't made any definitive
>statement on the subject. Quoting only the first half of his statement
>and ignoring the significant latter part is quoting the statement wildly
>out of context.

Steven's statement was:
   "Counsel recently made a statement that it doesn't appear that
    ARIN has any legal obligation to maintain registry services for
    legacy assignments"

Please refer to the transcript.  Counsel's statements with respect
to denial of the free services to legacy holders are extremely clear. 
The exact quote from the transcript:

"And the denial of those free services to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law. I've thought about it that far. I haven't thought carefully about what would be the stick beyond denial of those free services. And in my view, the two are quite different. "

The remainder of Mr. Ryan's response is about measures *beyond*
denial of free services to legacy holders, and as you noted, he states
that he hadn't given that matter the same level of thought, and is
still exploring legal theories.  Steven didn't include the remainder
because it's about actions "beyond the denial of those free services".

> > 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.
>
>Actually, there does seem to be a change in view on the Board of
>Trustees.

The Board has heard lots of comments that we need more outreach
to legacy holders, and that we need a way for legacy holders that
wish to participate the ARIN community to do so while maintaining
their current resources.  Beyond that, there are several hundred
emails on PPML which make suggestions for how to proceed with
respect to legacy address holders, and they range all over from
"take back the blocks if they don't reply" to "the status quo is fine". 

ARIN held a panel at the last meeting specifically to allow many
different views to be aired in a public manner, including getting
counsel to provide his legal perspective.  This was all done so that
the community could see the various aspects of this complex issue
and decide if anything needs to be done.   There will be even more
discussion of this topic at the ARIN upcoming meeting next week.

Until the community comes up with a consensus position, there
isn't any reason for the ARIN Board to act on this matter.  I'd
encourage everyone's participation in the upcoming meeting
(either in person or via the remote participation arrangements)
so that we can ensure that any action taken is the result of
thoughtful deliberation.

/John