[ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders

[Dean Anderson]

You want class B contacts? I am the contact on a legacy class B for the
Open Software Foundation (1989 delegation).

Av8 Internet is a paid-up ARIN member, and pays for ASN 11784 and the
198.3.136/21 block.

I think this idea is a subterfuge for snarky purposes.

There is some more background to this discussion:

Paul Vixie/SORBS have, since 2003, claimed falsely and dishonestly that
130.105/16 and 198.3.136/21 are hijacked.  These were the same tactics
that were used by ORBS. Recall that ORBS was shut by court order for
contempt, after it refused a court order to remove false listings. ORBS
lost 3 defamation suits.  Matthew Sullivan, the claimed operator of
SORBS, claims to have no assets to pay damages for defamation, and seeks
AV8 to expend money to sue him.  The goal is to increase the expenses of
Av8 Internet, and that Av8 Internet will be unable to justly
recover---the goal is further harm to Av8 Internet) See
http://www.iadl.org/, particularly pages on SORBS and MAPS.  They attack
me because I've exposed the truth about them, or rather, exposed their
lies and hypocrisy (e.g. anti-spammers who spam for abuse and profit)

There aren't very many legacy B's or legacy A's that aren't in use, and
so there is very little, if any, possibility of any reclamation
whatsoever.  I agree that legacy C's are of no concern to people in this
discussion.  In fact, there seems to be no genuine problem to solve, yet
a lot of discussion about what tools to use to solve the non-existing
problem.

Essentially, I suspect they are trying to do to Av8 what they did to
Kremen.  Which is why I am thinking of filing a Motion to Reconsider in
the Kremen case.  The Kremen result, dismissal on a technicality, was a
very unjust result.  The case was a 'big deal' on Internet governance
and public policy that should not be dismissed on a technicality when
ARIN had unclean hands in the matter.  I talked with Kremen's lawyer
this morning. He didn't know that ASN 11082 and 11084 still belonged to
ARIN, or that ARIN had transfered ASN 11083 individually to LACNIC while
the ASN was under dispute.  These subsequent transfers are additional
events further harming Kremen that ought to restart the clocks for the
statutes of limitations.  The untruthful and/or misleading statements
about the nature of the transfers should also restart the clocks.

There is indeed a settlement with Kremen as John Curran reported, which
isn't public. Kremen could even be satisfied with the result, as Curran
seemed to imply. But I am very concerned about the policy implications
of the decision and the way it was handled.  The public interest is not
well served by allowing anarchists to prevail with unclean
hands---Anarchists who refuse to implement court orders, who transfer
assets under dispute and who then untruthfully report those assets
aren't under their control all while conducting frivolous negotiations
asserting for example that ARIN wasn't notified until 2003. The
principle of Estoppel should prevent ARIN from subsequently claiming
that the violations began in 2001, contrary to its earlier assertions
that no notice was received and hence no violations accrued until 2003.


		--Dean




On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, David Williamson wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:24:44AM -0400, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> > I believe the web link with markers like Owens broken down would be a great thing.
> 
> I agree.  There's little reason to believe that a stick will be more
> effective than a carrot at this point.
> 
> I find it interesting that we've had a few legacy holders pop up to
> provide input, which is refreshing and exceedingly useful.  I also find
> it interesting that all of them seem to be holders of class C space.  I
> suspect that the class C swamp is not the real point of interest in
> this conversation, however, and I'm wondering if any of the A or B
> holders have any opinion on the direction this is heading.
> 
> It also occured to me that the modern definitions that most closely
> apply for class A and class C space are almost certainly "allocation"
> and "assignment", respectively.  It's hard to imagine an allocation of
> a /24, especially from that earlier era.  As usual, the class B space
> is the troubling one when it comes to definitions.
> 
> I also had the throught that if/when a stick does get applied, it
> should be done in such a way that we get the most bang for the buck.
> Within the class C space, I would support a general amnesty for anyone
> holding a /22 equivalent or less.  Let them sign an RSA that indicates
> that they have a PI assignment of their existing space.  As long as
> they have actual use for the space, they can keep it at the normal low
> rate for such things.  (We could also encourage someone holding two or
> four swamp class C addresses to return them in exchange for contiguous
> /23 or /22 assignments.)
> 
> I'd still prefer to avoid the "stick" and stay with the carrot, though.
> 
> -David
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000