[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> 	1.	Legacy holders are not here illegaly.

Legacy holders are violating the rules that the industry has
collectively agreed upon. The legacy holders are not playing fair. There
are obviously shades of grey here but the legacy holders are closer to
being here illegally than those who sign the RSA and pay their
membership fees.

> 	2.	Legacy holders can't be deported.

They could be deported, i.e. the legacy resources could be taken away
from them by suing them in court. I wouldn't recommend doing that at
this time, but it may be that the industry collectively will decide to
begin doing that as IPv4 resources become scarcer.

> 	3.	Legacy holders can remain and continue not 
> paying "taxes"
> 		without any risk because they haven't violated 
> any law/rules.

This is not true. They are in violation of ARIN rules and they run
several risks. First, they may be seen to be acting unfairly and thus
lose business. Secondly they may have their addresses reclaimed either
through operational actions (filtering announcements) or through court
action. I believe that these risks will increase as IPv4 addresses get
close to exhaustion.

> 	4.	Legacy holders are already exempt from ARIN contracts
> 		because they never signed one and ARIN is not a 
> governmental
> 		organization, so, is unable to make "laws" 
> which require actions
> 		or payments from entities with no contractual 
> relationship.

The law is not that simple. There are such things as common law and case
law. At least one court has already ruled that an organization must sign
ARIN's RSA and follow ARIN's rules and policies in order to transfer an
address allocation from another organization. Unless there are U.S. laws
that specifically address IP address allocations, it is not clear which
other laws, existing or new ones, might apply to IP address allocations
and the ARIN relationships. That kind of thing gets settled in court
cases which is why it is called case law.

I believe that if ARIN did implement any policy granting special waivers
and benefits to organizations in violation of ARIN's rules and policies,
that would weaken ARIN's case-law position. That is why I will not
support any such policy.

In fact, given the unlikeliness of an organization going through the
pain of renumbering to be a good network citizen, I suspect that this
policy was introduced as an attempt to weaken ARIN's case-law position.

--Michael Dillon