[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> Having said that, I can see benefits to being an ARIN member. 
>  If ARIN can develop an RSA that says we'll charge you a 
> nominal non-changing fee and not try to take your address 
> space way as long as you continue to use it. 

This last is the key point. Any IP address is a shared resource because
it comes from a finite shared resource pool. If an organization
continues to use the resource, then it has a justification for the
address space regardless of whether it was a legacy allocation or a more
recent one. 

The problem arises with the large number of legacy allocations which do
not appear to be in use where the original address holder seems to have
disappeared. In addition, it is possible that some legacy holders that
clearly do exist, such as Dupont, are in violation of ARIN guidelines
because they do not have justification for all of the address space
which they hold. This gives them special status which they do not
deserve and is an example of a non-level playing field.

We can no longer accept the situation in which all legacy holders are
just lumped together. We need to begin sorting out the mess and
reclaiming addresses which are either unused or unjustified. And if a
legacy holder does not want to be part of the RIR system and actively
refuses to work with us, they we need to flag that fact. IP addresses do
not belong to the holder, they belong to the community and if a legacy
holder is a rogue then the community should be informed about that.

> Further, if ARIN 
> is absorbed or otherwise changed, the agreement remains in 
> place unchanged or is rendered null and void and we're back 
> to legacy status. 

I doubt this will happen. Since ARIN is an incorporated organization, it
has to be wound up in an orderly fashion.

--Michael Dillon