[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of LegacyResources

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Owen DeLong
>Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:28 PM
>To: Member Services
>Cc: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of
>LegacyResources
>
>
>I oppose this proposal as written.
>
>While I am in favor of some of the general intent of this proposal, I
>take
>issue with the following:
>
>1.	Termination of changes to records.
>
>	The information in WHOIS is already horribly out of date for
>	many records.  Refusing to register changes for those organizations
>	willing to register their changes but unwilling to sign an RSA is a
>	disservice to the ARIN community and does not really provide
>	any meaningful incentive to sign the RSA.

This is a circular argument.  Your saying that people who are unwilling to
sign
an RSA are going to change their minds if a meaningful incentive is
provided,
yet you don't think that refusing to register changes is a meaningful
incentive.

It sounds to me like the kid telling the parent "I'll eat my dinner after
getting
ice cream" and the parent giving the ice cream to the kid.  Once the changes
are
made, you have just given away any possibility of having a meaningful
incentive.

>
>2.	Fees
>
>	ARIN is not really in a position to demand fees from legacy holders.

Yes, without an RSA they cannot demand fees.

>	We should make it possible for legacy holders to enter into an RSA
>	without requiring fees.

The entire point of an RSA is to get fees out of an address holder.  What
possible use is a signed RSA to the community that does not levy fees?

>  We should encourage legacy holders to fully
>	join the ARIN process and pay annual fees, but, I think
>that tying the
>	RSA signing to a commitment to pay fees is an unnecessary barrier
>	to the RSA.  The RSA is, in my opinion, the more important goal.
>

Kind of like a nun saying she wants to get pregnant but retain her vow
of chastity.  The fees and RSA are part and parcel of each other.

>3.	Termination of DNS services
>
>	Much like the refusal to make changes to whois, this action is more
>	of a disservice to the ARIN community than any sort of incentive for
>	legacy holders.
>

The ARIN community comprises both RSA-signers and non-RSA-signers.
This action helps the RSA-signers because now the legacy holders will
start carrying more of the financial burden and the fees for the RSA-signers
will go down.  It hurts the non-RSA-signers because now they have to start
paying
money for something they got free.  The help and harm counterbalance each
other and so this proposal is absolutely neutral to the community as a
whole.

You are just playing at a very clever word game when you use the term "ARIN
community"
as in one sentence your meaning for it includes legacy holders, in another
it doesen't,
your switching it around by implication.


The long and short of it is that the only argument that has any weight at
all
for letting the legacy holders continue to get a free ride is that they
somehow
have a "moral" right to get a free ride because they were promised one.  Of
course,
the American Indian made the same argument when the Europeans pushed them
out
of their homelands and onto reservations and we know what happened there.

Ted