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

[Thomas Leonard]

Ron, 

Bravo.  You hit it right on the head.

Again, bravo.  


Thomas Leonard
LANline Communications, Inc.
48 Mamaroneck Ave. STE 32
White Plains, NY 10601
914-397-0500 
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ron Cleven
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:59 PM
To: arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?



> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Ron Cleven wrote:
> 
> 
>>                   Legacy's have as much right to monetize
>>                   these resources as you do.
>>
>>Wow!  So THIS is what this discussion is about?  MIT, et al, are going 
>>to start selling all the IPV4 space they aren't using?  Are they going 
>>to sell them off to individuals or back to ARIN?
> 
> 
> No, MIT is not going to 'sell off space'. Rather, certain persons want
> to steal some legacy space so they can make money off of that space.  
> But MIT or other legacy holders have the same rights as e.g. BT to make
> money off of it.  MIT has as much fundamental right to run an internet
> service as BT does.

So, MIT needs all this IP space to run a REALLLLLLLY big ISP at some 
time in the future?  That makes sense.  When were they planning on 
starting that?  What kind of idiot do you take me for?  You will have to 
enlighten all of us about who those "certain persons" are who want to 
"steal" legacy space to make money off it.  And please enlighten all of 
us specifically about how all these thieves are going to make their 
money.  I certainly have no way to directly benefit from such a change.

The idea of changing the ARIN charges to be scaled directly based upon 
IP space has NOTHING directly to do with legacy IP holders.  It is 
purely to ensure responsible allocation of IPV4 space now and in the 
future.  EVERYONE (not just those poooooor legacy holders) would be 
equally incented to conserve IPV4 space.  I don't know and don't care 
whether such a change would increase or decrease my annual dues.


> 
>>Gee, if ARIN has nothing in its charter relating to responsible 
>>delegation of IPV4 space, it really should have.  
> 
> 
> There is no relation to responsible delegation, here. It is purely a 
> 'land grab'. 
> 
> But ironically, the many of the same people that want to steal the space
> from legacy's also want to avoid rationing in order to prevent total
> depletion in 3 years. 
> 
> 
>>Finally, if ARIN does not have the legal authority to update its fee 
>>structures to incentify the preservation and responsible delegation of 
>>IPV4 space, then it is time to get Congress involved.  You can parse 
>>statements by attorneys all day long, but this is a no-brainer.
> 
> 
> The legacy space, is by definition, delegated by the government with no
> strings attached before ARIN existed.  As the lawyer said, an Act to
> take that back probably isn't even constitutional.
> 

I must have missed that clause about IP space in my constitutional 
studies.  Was this a freedom of speech issue?  Or does it somehow relate 
  to gun control?  I am frankly NEVER impressed by lawyers claiming "It 
is unconstitutional!".  Congress is perpetually undoing stupid things 
they have done in the past.  This is no different.


> Cost isn't a real issue, but it is frequently cited.  There isn't much
> cost associated with legacy space: infrequent changes to registration
> records, often no swip.  The whois service for legacy assignments is a
> service that non-legacy's want, and non-legacy's want in-addr for legacy
> space.  ARIN took on that insignificant burden for the opportunity and
> privilege of running the registry.  Cost isn't a legitimate issue.
> 

What?  What does the cost to supply "whois" service have to do with a 
change in the ARIN fee structure to encourage responsible usage of IP 
space?  NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!

The bottom line is that if ARIN members were charged annual fees 
directly proportional to their IP space size, then I can guarantee you 
that a whole lot of ISP's (and other entities, some of which are legacy 
holders) would start looking really critically at how they are using 
their IP space.  And lots of them would suddenly find really creative 
ways to reduce their usage of IPV4 space.  Maybe even some of them would 
start to consider IPV6.  Hence, all this discussion about whether legacy 
holders have enough space to make this change worthwhile is totally 
silly.  IT IS NOT ABOUT LEGACY IP HOLDERS.  It is all about conservation 
of IPV4 across the board, and making that entire process self-policing.


> There aren't any legitimate issues whatsoever. 
> 
> Its just a simple theft of resources from a group that isn't well
> represented on ARIN ppml, on the false premise of anarchy and lack of 
> rights.
> 
> ARIN has plenty of authority over the all of the space delegated by IANA
> since 1996.  There isn't much Legacy space, but people want to steal it 
> anyway.
> 
> 		--Dean
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion
Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member
Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.