[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

 actually, i beleive that ARIN, as a condition in its charter, is 
to ensure that those who received addresses prior to ARINs existance
are treated fairly (and fair is open to debate)... The upshot is that
ARIN does have an obligation to these address holders...  the long/lean of 
the argument is that they received their addresses under certain
terms and conditions...  and forcing changes on those t&c's in a
unilateral manner might be problematic.  Just like folks who signed
up under RSA #5...  one might argue that RSA #9 is what holds sway,
but the truth is, they signed up to RSA #5 and have not upgraded yet.

--bill




On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 03:04:12PM -0500, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> Just a thought, but while it is true that the legacy holders have no
> obligation to ARIN (or any other RIR), so ARIN has no obligation to
> them.  If their IP's were treated as bogon it would certainly change the
> status quo.  
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> > Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 1:27 PM
> > To: michael.dillon at bt.com
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:00 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >> There already _is_ a special class: legacy holders.  Counsel has 
> > >> indicated that all we can do is incent such folks into 
> > becoming part 
> > >> of the normal class, not force them into compliance, and this 
> > >> proposal attempts to use one of the few carrots ARIN has at its 
> > >> disposal.
> > >
> > > Who said anything about forcing them?
> > >
> > In my mind, you did.
> > 
> > > In my view, there is *NO* special class of address holders. Those 
> > > legacy holders are not a special class, they are either ignorant of 
> > > the rules or they are blatantly flouting the rules. In either case, 
> > > they are
> > > *NOT*
> > > a special class and have no special rights. If it ever came 
> > to it in 
> > > the courts, the likelihood is that the courts will once again rule 
> > > that legacy address holders must comply with the ARIN rules and 
> > > policies which all other address holders comply with.
> > >
> > Um, not exactly.  They are NOT SUBJECT to the rules.  They 
> > have no contractual relationship with the RIRs and no reason 
> > to believe they need one.  The courts have never ruled that.  
> > I don't know what makes you think they would rule that way 
> > again given that they never have.
> > 
> > Steve Ryan has stated that we don't likely have any such case 
> > against legacy address holders and that we would likely 
> > loose.  When it comes to a legal opinion on this subject, I 
> > tend to believe Steve before I would believe you.
> > > The playing field must be made as level as we can without 
> > > extraordinary effort. That's why we don't actively take 
> > legacy holders 
> > > to court and try to force them to sign the RSA and pay their fare 
> > > share of the fees.
> > 
> > Actually, I believe the reasons are:
> > 	1.	There isn't enough money in the fees to justify 
> > the effort.
> > 	2.	We wouldn't be likely to win even if we did (at 
> > least according
> > 		to Steve Ryan).
> > 	3.	It would be very expensive and time consuming.
> > 	4.	It would also probably create some fairly 
> > massive publicity
> > 		that would be negative to both sides.
> > 
> > > To do that would be extraordinary effort. But at the same 
> > time we must 
> > > not in any way actively provide benefits to those who flout 
> > the rules 
> > > and leech off the rest of us. If these organizations are going to 
> > > continue to flout the rules, I would rather leave them in 
> > exactly the 
> > > same state they are today, not provide the benefit of an aggregate 
> > > allocation.
> > >
> > I hate to break it to you, but, existing policy provides that 
> > benefit already.
> > This proposal doesn't seek to change that fact.  Instead, it 
> > seeks to provide them some benefit and encouragement to 
> > RETURN addresses which will benefit the community.  Please 
> > try to look at the issues the policy attempts to address 
> > instead of continuing down this rathole of other existing 
> > policies that are already on the books.  Please re-read the 
> > existing NRPM 4.6 and 4.7 and then let's discuss this in 
> > terms of the changes being proposed instead of how much you 
> > dislike what is already on the books.
> > 
> > > Also, note that an organization must exert considerable effort to 
> > > renumber into a new allocation, and the only real reason to 
> > do that is 
> > > to be a good network citizen. But if they want to be a good network 
> > > citizen, then they can simply sign the RSA, start paying membership 
> > > fees, and turn back any extra addresses that they may have. This is 
> > > all possible today with no change in policy.
> > >
> > True, but, obviously, there are reasons it's not happening.  
> > I know that there are legacy holders with contiguous chunks 
> > of unused address space.  I believe that this policy would 
> > facilitate them returning more space than current policy. As 
> > such, I think this policy would put us in a better place than 
> > we are today.  I agree it is not a complete solution, but, my 
> > measure of good policy change is "Does it put us in a better 
> > place than we are today?", rather than "Does it solve all 
> > problems in one fell swoop?"
> > 
> > Owen
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
> > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> > Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml