[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal

[Paul Vixie]

> If you (meaning ARIN) believe it desirable to bring the legacy
> registrants into the fold, you really have two options:
> 
> 1. Do it substantially on their terms.
> 2. Do it by soliciting sufficient legal authority for ICANN from the
> USG so that "the community," by way of ARIN, can force the issue.
> 
> Pick your poison.

as a signator of LRSA in my day job, i just can't agree that this is the
choice ARIN faces.  and without taking a position on whether ICANN is a
relevant authority or a past successor in interest to USG on addresses,
i think your given two choices are oversimplified.

> We can argue about it on PPML for the next ten years but the bottom
> line is this: the legacy registrants will come into the fold either
> when they're forced to or when they see an offer they like. At the
> moment, you haven't enough authority to force the issue without making
> a mess that hurts you and the community as much as or more than it
> hurts the legacy registrants.

if the will of the community was that the issue be forced, then we could
discuss its practicalities.  however, that's not evidenced, so let's not.

> And you haven't made the legacy registrants an offer they like.

you're acting like i was the only one who signed it on advice of dayjob
counsel.  there hasn't been a stampede, i'll grant that, but other than a
few folks on PPML some of whom misunderstood the terms and changed their
minds after they learned the details, there hasn't been a revolt, either.

> > ...
> 
> As I recall, the community's involvement with the LRSA started and
> stopped with proposing that one exist. From there it was taken behind
> closed doors and ratified in substantially the same form as it was first
> presented.
> 
> And frankly that's probably OK. It isn't within the purview of the public
> policy process to write ARIN's contract documents. The best any of us can
> really do is draw your attention to clauses that might be improved.

while PPML is meant substantially to discuss the NRPM, it's in my opinion
quite reasonable to propose changes to the LRSA here as well, even if the
process for getting ideas from the mailing list into the contract language
are a bit fuzzy.  the LRSA is online, i recommend that folks who think it
sends the wrong message or misconveys the community's interests download
it, post the text they think is bad, and post proposed replacement text,
with reasoning for the change.  if on the other hand your complaint is not
generalizable -- it's for your own reasons as a legacy holder that you do
not want to sign it -- then that's probably something to negotiate with
staff rather than trying to get community consensus about it.

> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> > What is the point of signing a contract that has no teeth?
> 
> Excellent question but it cuts both ways. With the LRSA, we know what
> teeth bite the registrant if he doesn't uphold his end: he loses his
> addresses. What teeth bite ARIN if they don't uphold theirs? What's
> ARIN's penalty for trying to skirt the edge of what the contract allows?

lawsuits, i expect.  but can you explain ARIN's likely motives for skirting?

> Without as strong a penalty as the registrant faces for failing to uphold
> his end, the LRSA is lopsided even before you consider the beneficial
> status the legacy registrant holds if he signs no contract.

my own dayjob counsel told me that it would be better to have known rights
than unknown rights, as long as i didn't care about selling the address
space on e-bay.  is that the elephant in this room?  are some legacy
holders objecting to having RSA-like restrictions on selling their space,
and are therefore rejecting the LRSA on that basis, but not willing to say
so here?  if so, that's kinda rotten, and maybe somewhat pessimistic.  i
don't expect that any transfer policy (along the lines of 2008-2 or
similar) will offer differential rights to LRSA vs. RSA, and i think it
would be wrong for legacy holders to ask for differential transfer rights,
that would show a "land rush" mentality around resources that were granted
by the community for the community's good.  legacy, LRSA, and RSA all share
fate with regard to prospective "paid transfer" or any other kind of
transfer.  so i'm at wit's end trying to understand what rights a legacy
holder thinks they can preserve by not signing an LRSA.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.