[ppml] Incentive to legacy address holders

[Dean Anderson]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, James Hess wrote:

> > The latecomer's aren't paying "extra". The price went up, just like the
> > price of property rises in the late stages of development.  The first
> > people in take the biggest risks, and get the lowest price.
> 
> People, providers, organizations use the address space
> they have registered, but they don't own it, they are not like homesteaders;
> they don't have any property at all, they are merely tenants of certain
> addresses in certain registries.

They have a time-unlimited registration agreement with IANA/DoC.

> > Second, the Legacy holders have an agreement which ARIN doesn't have a
> > right to break or modify. ARIN is the custodian of the records, not the
> > owner of the records.
> 
> The informal agreement (if any) is not with ARIN, but an organization that
> used to exist that no longer does in that form -- IANA is a generic name now,
> for whatever organization currently happens to be assigned to perform certain
> functions,

The IANA function most certainly does exist, and is the subject of a
contract between ICANN and the DoC.

> So ARIN really has no obligation to uphold an agreement made with
> the organization that is not responsible anymore for that aspect of maintaining
> the registry.

Sorry. the IANA is still responsible. And ARIN is still responsible to
the IANA and DoC.  Your fallacy is a good reason that there should be
organizational change periodically.

> > It hasn't been a free ride for legacy holders.  The latecomers are
> > the ones getting the free ride: using free protocols, free software,
> > and free operational experience that the legacy holders developed
> > for them.
> 
> Being a legacy holder has nothing to do with developing free software
> or developing free protocols.  There are probably plenty of legacy
> holders who have made no substantial contribution to the community.

They have generally made much more contribution than the latecomers.

> There are plenty of "latecomers" who have developed free software,
> free protocols, and other useful things.
> 
> In effect, that a legacy holder "developed" something useful may be
> true, for the oldest legacy holders, but I don't see it as a
> compelling basis for treating legacy holders as a class any
> differently.

They have to be treated according to the agreements they already have.

> > As has been said previously, ARIN is the custodian of records for
> > the IANA (DoC).  Even the non-legacy delegations don't belong to
> > ARIN. ARIN is just the agent of the IANA. The legacy holders have
> > pre-existing agreements with the IANA. ARIN has no standing and no
> > justification to interfere with those prior agreements.
> 
> Saying it over and over again doesn't make it the case.

Disputing it over and over again without facts doesn't make your case.  
I've read the contracts.  Maybe you could also read the contracts,
rather than just assert nonsense which has no basis in fact.

> The organization that is now called IANA does not own the delegations;
> IANA is the mere technical custodian in this picture, not ARIN. ARIN
> is not an agent of IANA.
> 
> IANA is subordinate to ICANN.

That isn't what the contracts say. The contracts say that the US
government has contracted the IANA function to ICANN.  ICANN just
provides staff to __operate__ the IANA function, and will only do so as
long as the US government allows it to do so by contract.  IANA isn't
"subordinate" to ICANN, but "operated" by ICANN. There is a difference.

> If you examine the IANA web site, you will note of particular interest
> the "IANA-Related Issue Escalation Procedure," in case of IANA-related
> issues, and the final escalations if an issue remains unresolved are
> to ICANN staff.
> 
> I.E. The ICANN President and CEO have oversight over the IANA general
> manager.

ICANN _operates_ the IANA function.  It is different the relationship
you describe.

IANA isn't an organization, Its a function of the DoC, operated by
ICANN.

> One legitimate purpose is equal treatment of all the organizations
> whose records are being maintained by the RIR, by getting them in the
> same fair policy framework.

The fallacy you are promoting is that their is something unfair.  We
already have the same fair policy framework, established by the DoC.  
However, just like domain name registration, your fees for creating new
domains may change. That's not unfair.

> I also don't agree with the supposition that the proposal is not about
> outreach or identification of abandoned delegations.
> 
> If you have a better way that does all these things, then propose it..

I already did propose a better way.  You obviously ignored it.

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