[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 10:07:06AM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> AT&T? Ford? Level(3)? Apple? Haliburton?

Two of three already have signed RSA's (I assume).  AT&T and Level(3)
both have a large number of blocks they got by buying companies
that formed post-ARIN, and so they got the RSA's with them.  If you
in herit an RSA, does it cover your legacy space as well?

> I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment as to whether anyone has
> a case or not, but I can say that I believe that legacy IP
> address space is property in some instances. That is the
> issue isn't it? It's not about signing the RSA, it's about
> giving up rights. You sign the RSA, you give up rights. It's
> not about $100.00

I haven't seen anyone make a formal argument it's property.  Legacy
owners seem concerned about two things:

- Fees.
- That they not be subjected to the policy requirements for the space.
  That is, 80%, 50%, or whatever utilization numbers.
  - Specifically, that their space cannot be revoked for failing to use
    it.

Note, if you want to transfer your block to someone legally (via
ARIN), the transfer guidelines page clearly states that the new
owner must sign the RSA and abide by all policies.  That is, if
there is an implied contract with legacy space it's non-transferable.

> Reclamation is not as simple as it looks. *I don't support
> Owen's policy*, but I support the intent. Amnesty is a one
> shot deal, not a stop at the drive through convenience store
> dropping off a token /20 for a bottle deposit refund every
> now and then. 

While Owen's policy has "Reclamation" in the title, it doesn't
appear to me it actually encourages reclamation that much.  Sure,
it allows it to happen, but we already have an amnesty program that
allows it to happen.  Rather, it appears to me he has three intents:

- Entice people into the RIR system by giving them more favorable
  terms.  (Sign an RSA, pay fees.)w
- Turn in your existing bucket of disjoint small netblocks for
  one large, aggregateable netblock.
- Returning address space reduces your fees to provide some incentive.

So if I have 16 disjoint /24's in the swamp taking up 16 routing
slots I can turn them back in for a /20 and take up one routing
slot.

Sure, there's a carrot in there to reclaim space, but I can't imagine
anyone thinks this will get someone to return a /8.

Rather than call it the "Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation"
policy I think it might be better termed the "Legacy Outreach and
Aggregation" policy.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070703/78581bba/attachment.sig>