[ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Cliff Bedore
>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 9:25 AM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?
>
>
>I originally sent this to John Curran directly but after reading more
>comments, I thought I'd post it to the group
>
>
>As a legacy holder who has recently joined the PPML list, I can see certain
>advantages to joining ARIN.  I'm just not sure of the best way to keep my
>network number safe if I join.  I have a Class C (/24) and use it
>actively but
>don't use 50% of the numbers at the current time.  If ARIN were to
>have an RSA
>that lets us join, pay our $100.00 per year and leave us alone with our
>networks, I'd be happy to join.  Do I want to pay $100.00 per
>year?  No but it
>won't break my small consulting firm and it's probably a good
>thing to do.  I
>tend to be suspicious of groups that say "We're from the governmet
>and we're
>here to help you"  I have never seen a government/quasi-government
>group shrink
>or give up any power/control except at the point of a gun and I expect most
>legacy users feel the same way.  I expect most are willing to take
>their chances
>by maintaining their "legacy" status of being grandfathered into ARIN's
>in-addr-ARPA service unless there is a very strong specific RSA
>protecting their
>status quo.  This is not to say that if they need more resources,
>they should
>have free rein to get them.  People keep working around this but
>all proposals
>seem to have more stick than carrot.
>
>It would seem to me that the ARIN leadership needs to look at the
>way to get
>people to join.  There seems to be no concensus on the list about how to do
>this but if ARIN's goal is to get people to join, they need to take a
>pro-active stance to get it done.  The choices seem to be to leave
>the legacy
>owners alone and codify their right to ARIN in-addr service or take strong
>action to make them default members of ARIN by whatever means
>necessary. This
>could go to the point of offering free membership and guarantees
>of safe harbor
>for existing numbers with limited other benefits (maybe no voting etc) and
>then allow full membership for a nominal fee.
>
>As others have stated, this is a v4 problem only and will disappear when v6
>takes over.  I think it is to ARIN's advantage as the numbers get
>tight toward
>the end to have as many as possible legacy folks under the ARIN/other RIRs
>umbrella.

>The problems of hijacked legacy numbers will only cost ARIN more
>time and money for lawyers and dispute resolution

Why?  As ARIN is not legally obligated to the legacy holders to do anything,
any attempt to involve them in a dispute can merely be ignored.  There is
no gain to ARIN to be involved in someone else's lawsuit with some other
person.

>and I think any
>action that
>ARIN takes to get legacy users under ARIN should be taken.

It's already been done.  ARIN has setup the mechanism that a legacy holder
can use to become a member - just contact them and sign an agreement and
start paying the fees.

  This
>would/should/could include free limited membership and any other incentives
>needed.  Is it fair to the newcomers?  In some ways probably not
>but if they
>have to pay increased fees to cover the costs of dispute resolution because
>the legacy users have not joined, they won't be happy about that either.
>

I would rather pay the legal fees because I am pretty confident that
anything
that comes out of such a dispute is going to result in the Judge telling the
plantiff and defendant that they have to submit to ARIN's rules.  And once a
few cases like that have been filed and rulings like this, there won't be
any
more of these disputes involving ARIN because both parties know that they
will give up their autonomy as legacy holders if they try to involve ARIN.

>I look at this somewhat like Ford's pardon of Nixon.  Was it
>"fair" for Nixon
>to walk?  No but it was better for the country to get past the
>embarrassment
>and back to more important things.

That is very arguable.  The fact that Nixon was pardonded turned off an
entire generation in disgust to US politics.  Arguably, the disillusionment
added to the lower voter turnouts of subsequent presidential elections,
which then allowed minority factions like the Christian Right Wing to
get a foothold and ultimately take over the Republican party and got
Raygun elected.

Imagine Nixon taking dictation from the likes of Jerry Falwell - it would
never have happened in Nixon's time.

The argument that "the country needs to get past..." has been used to
justify a whole host of nasty things in US politics, everything from
treatment of Vietnam Vets to the 2000 election, to the Japanese internment
not being recognized as even happening for almost 50 years...

It is rarely better for the embarrassment to be swept under
the rug.

Ted