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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 25, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
>
>> -----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 	The information in WHOIS is already horribly out of date for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.

I am saying that having the whois data current benefits the entire  
community
and that detracting from that is counterproductive.

I am all for incentives to sign the RSA, but, termination of changes  
to whois
is not an incentive, it's an attempt to wield a club.  A club, which,  
in this case
hurts the wielder more than the recipient of the blow.

Mine is not a circular argument, but, I can see how from a certain  
warped
perspective it might appear circular.  Unwarp the perspective to the  
point
where you can distinguish between carrot and stick, and, all should  
become
clear.

>>
>> 2.	Fees
>>
>> 	ARIN is not really in a position to demand fees from legacy holders.
>
> Yes, without an RSA they cannot demand fees.
>
Right, so, making fees a direct result of signing an RSA serves as a
disincentive to signing an RSA.

>> 	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?
>
No, it is not.  The point of an RSA is to get to a point where the  
holder is
subject to the same general policies and processes as the rest of the
community.  The increase in ARIN revenues which would result if we
somehow convinced EVERY legacy holder to begin paying fees would
be very small.  The numbers that have been bandied about are relatively
trivial, and, they are drastic overestimations of the reality.  The  
reality
is that many legacy holders also have ARIN resources which are under
RSA.  Such holders probably would not pay any additional fees by
bringing their resources under RSA.  Further, it is very likely that  
a good
chunk of the legacy blocks are held by organizations that are defunct,
further reducing the likelihood of actually collecting money.

>>  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.
>
No, they are not.  The RSA is an agreement which, among other things,
specifies obligations of the parties on both sides to behave in certain
ways and make certain assurances to each other.  These aspects of the
RSA are the most important goal with respect to legacy addresses.  The
fees are virtually irrelevant other than the extent to which imposing  
them
stands in the way of the other goals.

>> 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.
>
Even if the non-signers paid fully the maximum estimated amount, you  
would
not see RSA-signers fees reduced by more than 1 or 2 dollars.  I  
really don't
think a 1-2% maximum reduction in fees is a meaningful outcome here.

I do think that getting as many legacy holders as possible to agree  
to abide
by ARIN policies is a far more meaningful goal and getting them to  
sign an
RSA will accomplish that goal.

> 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.
>
I don't believe that I have used the term ARIN community in any  
context where
I intended it to exclude legacy holders.  Termination of DNS services  
for legacy
blocks is a disservice to the ENTIRE ARIN COMMUNITY, legacy and non- 
legacy.
It might be a small club (incentive is far too positive a word for  
this tactic) in
terms of it might cause legacy holders some pain, but, the pain will  
also be
shared by non-legacy holders that can no longer resolve reverses for  
those
legacy blocks.
>
> 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,

Which, while true, is really not the core issue in my opinion.  I  
really don't care
whether they continue to get a free ride or not.  I don't think any  
of the proposals
to end the free ride have any chance of being effective.

What I do care about is trying to find a way to incorporate the  
legacy holders
into the ARIN policy process and make sure that legacy blocks are  
properly
considered in respect to new resource delegations.

> 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.
>
Yes... One of the greatest examples of tyranny, oppression, and  
atrocities in
human history.  While the Europeans definitely got the upper hand and  
the better
end of the events, I really would not hold that up as behavior that  
should be
emulated.

Owen