<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Legacy's have as much right to monetize
<br>
these resources as you do.
<br>
<br>
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?
<br>
<br>
Gee, if ARIN has nothing in its charter relating to responsible
delegation of IPV4 space, it really should have. And, if it does have
something in its charter relating to that, then the most obvious way to
accomplish it is to charge a consistent per IP fee. ARIN could also
charge separately for registration services to account for the actual
costs of rendering those services. Those two concepts are NOT mutually
exclusive. At the risk of stating the obvious, the higher the per-IP
price, the easier ARIN's job would be.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dean Anderson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midPine.LNX.4.44.0710082012280.16571-100000@citation2.av8.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This disingenuous story ignores the real issue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Hardly disingenuous. I think it mirrors a large number of Legacy
experiences.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The rest of the IPv4 world has been out there doing their thing - and
their thing involved watching out for your interests. If they hadn't
been doing this, your block could have likely been routed by someone
else somewhere else and you would have lost the use of it. I'm sure
if that happened you would have suddenly 'discovered' ARIN real fast.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You've been watching out for Legacy interests? I don't think so.
Legacy's made this sandbox. You are the one playing in _our_ sandbox,
with toys that _we_ made.
Legacy's haven't just 'discovered ARIN'. We've always known who ARIN
was, who the Internic was before that, and SRI before that. I think
you've taken some comments a little too literally. It is true that
Legacy's haven't been participating in ARIN, and so people like you have
been bashing Legacy's with little rebuttal. But not knowing who ARIN is?
Or where to change registration information? Please. Legacy's know
exactly who to come to if someone changed the registry improperly.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Now, nobody so far is coming after you for your /24. It is small.
And of no real use to affect IPv4 runout rates. Because of this, your
ARIN experience really has no bearing on the issue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Come after someone? You need some legal basis to 'come after' someone.
ARIN's Counsel doesn't even know if an Act of Congress can take these
resources away.
Taking away just reverse DNS and electronic whois, but keeping
registrations as-is, isn't going to fly. Those are the only 'free
services' that ARIN provides. BTW, even if Sprunk were right and ARIN
didn't have obligation to provide those services, that still wouldn't
fly: Non-legacy's want to see reverse DNS for Legacy's and they want to
see whois data for Legacy's. These are just dumb ideas and stupid
schemes.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The real issue is threefold:
1) Is there enough unused IPv4 in large legacy holders to make a
difference in IPv4 runout rates?
2) If there is, should ARIN spend time attempting to retrieve it?
3) If ARIN should, is it even possible to go about doing so without creating
undesirable side effects?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This list is _your_ interest in trying to unlawfully take these
resources for your own benefit.
Standing against your scheme is the fact that it isn't legal. Legacy's
have as much right to monetize these resources as you do. MIT has the
same right as British Telecom to monetize IP resources. Legacy's have
more right, if one could possibly have more right.
--Dean
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>