[ppml] ARIN Outreach to Legacy Holders

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 10, 2007, at 7:04 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:

>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>> Legacy addresses, if you read the documents were assigned to specific
>> people for specific networks.
>
> I beleieve above is wrong although its harder now to judge  
> specifics of
> process that legacy holders went through. But general view seems to be
> that ip addresses are and were assigned/allocated to organizations or
> more specifically to legal entities (which is either organization or
> individual by himself).
>
Nope... Prior to ARIN, IP addresses were assigned to people,  
organizations,
and just about anything else you can imagine.  I know a guy who managed
to get a class B for his dog back when (I'm not defending it, just  
pointing out
that it was possible).

>> What argument could be made that they should be transferable to that
>> person's children?
>
> They need not make any transfer require if block was assigned to
> organization. They simply become new owners of organization and
> get control of the block as part of the ownership transition.
>
If memory serves, addresses were never given out as transferrable.
To effect a transfer, you always had to submit a transfer request which
was subject to approval and required a similar (albeit less formal)
set of circumstances to what is now documented in ARIN policy.

>> The clocks a-tickin.  Two years and the legacy holders, ARIN, and
>> the community will all be rolling the dice as this unfolds.  We
>> have to lay out some decent terms quickly and hope most people sign
>> up, otherwise it's going to be too late to matter. If we don't all
>> come to some agreement soon I'm sure a court will impose situation
>> that no one likes if things go badly.
>
> Courts will likely be tried no matter what and in fact its likely
> that if ARIN imposed certain policy or requirement of RSA on person
> who did not have this before, this will not be viewed favorately
> by courts (i.e. its worth then status quo), but IANAL.
>
Impose, yes.  Encourage, promote, request, etc., I think the
courts would view favorably, and, that's what most people
on this list are suggesting.  The cry for a big stick seems to
be limited to very few rather vocal participants.
>> Most interestingly, neither outreach for RSA modifications are
>> policy matters, so that really puts the pressure squarely on the
>> BOD.
>
> It is. That does not mean its bad that its discussed here, I'm
> sure people from BoT can use more feedback on this subject and
> would like to take into account community views when making their
> decisions.
>
I have already been solicited to put some of this through the ACSP.
I just haven't had time to write it up there yet.  Coming soon.

> However it does seem that some policy proposals go beyond what could
> possibly be put on ARIN's policy page. And considering recent case of
> policy proposal that went through entire process and ulitmately was
> not accepted by BoT it would be great if ARIN when doing their review
> of the policy proposal provides feedback if that or is not so.
>
This was intentional in the case of my proposal.  I discussed it with  
some
members of the AC and some members of the BoT first.  The general
consensus of those consulted was that it made the most sense to
submit it as policy, run it through the policy mill, then let the BoT
sort out what parts belonged as policy, what needed to be taken
before the membership, and, what needed to be implemented through
other actions.

In general, ARIN doesn't have a better forum for discussing anything
that has a policy element to it, and, all policy elements must be  
discussed
here anyway.  Since there's no such requirement for the rest (other than
some level of requirement for involvement of the membership in certain
financial decisions), I put it up here first.  Let's see what, if  
anything,
makes it through the AC, PPML, Meeting, AC cycle, then address what
else needs to happen next.  If you want, I can always add a section
that requires the policy implementation be contingent on the relevant
non-policy steps being approved in their respective correct places.

Owen