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

[Dean Anderson]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, John Curran wrote:

> 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.

Actually, at the meeting he said that the law permitted one to deny free
services to those _without_an_agreement_. This is a general principle
true for any business.  However, Legacy's _do_ have an agreement with
the government. So this general principle is not true with respect to
ARIN Legacy's.

If fact, no statement was made specifically about Legacy's _with_ an
agreement during the meeting.  I know of no Legacy holders that do not
have an agreement.  Do you know of any such holders without agreements?



> 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.

You said that you had asked Counsel to prepare a formal statement. Where
is that statement?  Whenever I have made request for _formal_ opinion
from Counsel, I get a written legal opinion with lots of citations.

> > > >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. "

Except Legacy's aren't lacking an agreement.  You have paper records of
these agreements with the government. Do you mean to deny the fact that
the Legacy's have an agreement with the government that ARIN is
obligated to honor?

> 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".

No, it is about getting back legacy resources. If there were in fact no
agreement, that would be no problem as well.

> > > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000