[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication ofLegacyResources

[Lee Dilkie]

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
>
> No, the point of the RSA is to establish a contractual relationship between 
> ARIN and the current holder of resources and to subject those resources to 
> public policy as determined by the community.  Fees are optional.
>
>   
>> What possible use is a signed RSA to the community that does
>> not levy fees?
>>     
>
> See above.
>
> Note that the legacy holders who've spoken up here have no argument with 
> signing the RSA or paying the current $100/yr fee.  What they're asking for 
> is to be exempt from public policy, or at least parts thereof that adversely 
> affect them.
>
>   
Actually Stephen. While I support all your arguments (and Owen's POV as
well), *I* do have a problem with a $100/yr fee when I get almost
*nothing* in return. I hardly think RDNS costs $100/yr to hold my
records*. And trying to extort that much money for such a nominal
service is, well, extortion. Or would be if it actually mattered all
that much.

Also, I think the whole point of getting legacy holders to sign the RSA
*is* to bring them into the public policy fold, not continue their
exemption.

* - and before you point out that ARIN's $10M/yr buget does all sorts of
other "good" things, not one single "good" thing affects those end-users
who are not growing their networks. If you want to get into a discussion
on what's "fair", ask yourself if it's "fair" that all your membership
pays excessive fees that are used to subsidize new requests.
>> 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.
>>     
>
> ARIN made a promise to do something, and it's doing it.  We cannot ignore 
> that promise simply because you find it inconvenient.  It's taken a long 
> time for ARIN to build a good reputation in the community, and it'd be 
> stupid of us to throw that away by ignoring promises made and then expect 
> people to trust us in the future with such a track record.
>
>   
I've watched this list for months now. My views on ARIN were neutral
before (lack of exposure/contact). They certainly are not anymore. I
asked around at work and ARIN certainly does have a reputation, but it
isn't a good one. And I can see why. Poisonous vitriolic attitudes
towards legacy holders (them damn free-loaders!), a complete lack of
understanding on how to roll out and encourage ipv6, the roll ipv4 will
play in the future and for how long....

What I see on this list is a quasi-government organization that seeks
more control and more power (more power, damnit!) and seems to be
willing to concoct anything to try and justify power grabs (if trying to
force legacy holders into your RSA and fee structure isn't a power grab,
just what would you call it?).

Now. It's entirely possible (and I hope it is) that my views are shaped
by a minority of the membership, a vocal minority that frequents this
list. I hope that ARIN proper (the staff) does have a good sense of
their purpose and tries to moderate things down to reasonable levels. I
am encouraged by a number of staff recommendations against proposals
that came out earlier this year.

Anyway. My take on this policy? It's a thinly veiled grab at the legacy
holders (again).

-lee