[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-15: Authentication of LegacyResources
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Jul 25 15:01:56 EDT 2007
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>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
>I oppose this proposal as written.
>While I am in favor of some of the general intent of this proposal, I
>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 The information in WHOIS is already horribly out of date for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
an RSA are going to change their minds if a meaningful incentive is
yet you don't think that refusing to register changes is a meaningful
It sounds to me like the kid telling the parent "I'll eat my dinner after
ice cream" and the parent giving the ice cream to the kid. Once the changes
made, you have just given away any possibility of having a meaningful
> 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
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
You are just playing at a very clever word game when you use the term "ARIN
as in one sentence your meaning for it includes legacy holders, in another
your switching it around by implication.
The long and short of it is that the only argument that has any weight at
for letting the legacy holders continue to get a free ride is that they
have a "moral" right to get a free ride because they were promised one. Of
the American Indian made the same argument when the Europeans pushed them
of their homelands and onto reservations and we know what happened there.
More information about the ARIN-PPML