[ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Oct 15 15:43:01 EDT 2007

Well, Randy and Dean, I'm going to address both of you since you seem
to be on the same side here.

See here.  The non-legacy community doesen't have infinite patience
in dealing with you.  The legacy RSA that is coming up for discussion is
the paying communities attempt to accomodate your desires.  You don't
like it, well frankly not all of us like it either.  You can choose to
participate in the discussion to try to make the legacy RSA proposal
more to your liking or not.

But I will warn you, and the rest of the folks that seem to think like
you - meaning, your not going to participate no matter what.

This legacy RSA proposal is going to be the last offer your going to
get.  Once it's complete - in whatever form it ends up in - your going
to see a number of legacy holders
sign it.  If you don't, fine - but the community isn't going to have
the patience to come out with yet one more, different version of a legacy
RSA that is more to your liking - not only is there no patience for
it, but the existing legacy holders that end up signing this, who
do decide to participate, are going to feel cheated if the community
continues catering to you.  We - the paying community - aren't going to
screw over the legacy holders that DO decide to come in and play with
the rest of us and sign this RSA.  So, there won't be another legacy
RSA offered to you again.

Frankly, you should have shut your mouths about this in the beginning,
because IMHO it has been the continual insistance that legacy IP numbers
are property which has spurred this initative.

Your choice, if you decide to not sign, will be to live under 
uncertainty as to what happens to your IPv4 blocks.  Your central
argument of your claim boils down to IP (IPv4) numbers are property,
and you got property from someone a while ago.  This is a position
that is utterly unsupportable by the rest of the community.  We are
not going to give a damn if you get some US court to rule in your
favor - ARIN will move every last nexus out of the US if that were
to happen and remain in permanent voilation of whatever US court
ruling exists - because the idea that IP numbers are property would 
destroy the entire IP number assignment mechanism for ALL rir's
on a global scale.  And the rest of the administrators on the Internet
are not going to listen to a US court telling them what to do - and
administrators in the US that might be legally compelled to
recognise your IPv4 claim, well they may do so - but what good is that
if the rest of the Internet doesen't.  You are living under the delusion
that the US dictates terms on the Internet to the rest of the world.
And in any case, the liklihood of getting a US court to rule in your
favor is extremely slim.

Good luck getting the UN and the world court to see your way - because
that is what your going to have to do if you insist on this rediculous
course of claiming that IP numbers are property.

If you don't sign a legacy RSA then eventually, somewhere,
in a post-IPv4 runout world, your IP blocks will be poached by someone.
And your going to have a hell of a time getting any support from anyone
in the community to help you.

It's your choice.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Randy Bush
>Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 5:42 AM
>To: John Curran
>Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Posting of Legacy RSA and FAQ
>>>> The terms of the current RSA include both of these
>>>> as well.  We tried to stay as close to the current RSA
>>>> as possible (for fairness to existing members), with
>>>> the addition of the language which recognizes the
>>>> legacy holders status with respect to policies which
>>>> might otherwise reduce their rights.
>>> section 9 is a wonderful example of rights reduction.
>> One can look at it that way, but it comes along with 10(b)
>> which states:  "ARIN will take no action to reduce the services
>> provided for Included Number Resources that are not currently
>> being utilized by the Legacy Applicant."
>and that ameliorates section 9 exactly how?
>to be clear, no one's lawyer, who has half a clue, will advise them to
>enter into this contract, section 9 being the poster child.
>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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list