[ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

[Ray Plzak]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> William Herrin
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:24 AM
> To: John Curran
> Cc: Randy Bush; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
>
> On 10/5/07, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> > At 9:00 AM +0900 10/5/07, Randy Bush wrote:
> > >if arin does not want to carry out its commitment to the community
> and
> > >to the USG when it was chartered [0], i am sure the community can
> find
> > >an organization more interested in public service.
> >
> > Intestesting enough, the presentation specifically includes
> > commitment to following RFC2050, and RFC2050 states:
>
> John,
>
> Relatively few legacy assignments were made after RFC 2050 was
> published. Even if RFC 2050 could be considered "the law" for address
> assignments, it couldn't apply retroactively.
>

Regarding the applicability of RFC 2050 the abstract states the following:
        "This document replaces RFC 1466, with all the guidelines and procedures updated and modified in the light of experience."

RFC 1466 states: "This document proposes a plan which will forward the implementation of RFC 1174 and which defines the allocation and assignment of the network number space."

RFC 1174 provides further reference to the allocation and assignment and in effect documents the status quo in 1990.

Thus John's statement regarding RFC 2050 pertaining to allocation and assignment activity predating its publication date would appear to be valid.

Ray


> Randy's point about replacing ARIN for RDNS is not unsupported by law.
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> 1. ARIN drops RDNS for legacy registrants.
> 2. The legacy registrants band together and produce an organization
> qualified to handle RNDS delegation.
> 3. The legacy registrants ask ARIN to transfer the RDNS duty to this
> new organization.
> 4. ARIN refuses.
> 5. The legacy registrants suffer problems with email and
> authentication due to the lack of RDNS.
>
> In this hypothetical scenario, ARIN doesn't just decline to provide
> services to legacy holders; they obstruct legacy holders from
> receiving the service from anyone else as well. Look up the term
> "tortious interference." It would be an interesting case to litigate.
>
>
> On 10/5/07, michael.dillon at bt.com <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> > > [0]  http://rip.psg.com/~randy/970414.fncac.pdf   foil 9
> >
> > "Randy made a commitment" is not the same as "ARIN made a
> commitment".
>
> Michael,
>
> This is one record that's part of the whole process which justified
> ARIN taking on management of the swamp instead of just managing new
> /8's like the other RIRs. For better or for worse, that "Current and
> old allocations and their DNS will be maintained with no policy
> changes" is a part of ARIN's heritage.
>
> It doesn't create an indefinate legal obligation on ARIN because the
> law makes that very difficult to do and this statement doesn't have
> the required elements. It does, however, create a moral obligation.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> --
> William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN
> Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.