[ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

[Jeremy H. Griffith]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:29:09 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> 
wrote:

>>From: Jeremy H. Griffith
>>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:46 PM
>>
>>On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:25:09 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk" 
>><stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Where is this counsel statement?
>>>
>>>http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XIX/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_13
>>>
>>>"MR. RYAN: I've thought a little bit about what a stick might look like 
>>>here. So for example, it's very clear to me that denial of service by ARIN 
>>>is legally permitted. In other words, I don't believe we, as the non-profit 
>>>trying to carry out the community's wishes, have a duty to provide free 
>>>services for legacy address holders. And the denial of those free services 
>>>to legacy address holders pursuant to their lack of agreement is perfectly 
>>>permitted, in my judgment, as a matter of law."
>>
>>Perhaps not, but it would put ARIN right in the middle of
>>this ICANN issue:
>>  
>><http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=302552>
>>
>
>What issue?  The controversy here concerns whois on domain names, not
>whois records on IP address block assignments.

They are related.  The primary concern in the domain-name issue is
one of accountability.  If ARIN dropped the WHOIS services for the
address block assignments to legacy users, that accountability is
broken.  All someone has to do is use a legacy IP number instead of
a domain name, and they become effectively untraceable for anyone not
in LE or the NSA...  ;-)  So one result of such a policy would be to
raise the value of such addresses on the black market.  Not a good
idea, IMHO.

--Jeremy