[arin-ppml] LRSA concerns (Re: Policy Proposal: Whois IntegrityPolicy Proposal)

[Matthew Wilder]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:21 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Perhaps an LRSA would be more effective if it focused on those consensus 
> issues alone and left questions about ownership, utilization, revocation, 
> force majeure, et cetera for some other day.

Bill,

I am new to the PPML and so I have not experienced the historical progress of these policies as clearly many others here have.  I also benefit in this regard by having the neutrality of a bystander.

I believe your suggestions around acting on the consensus issues is wise, as it offers a compelling "risk-free" agreement to Legacy resource holders, which could be embodied in an LSRA-Lite agreement as previously suggested.  Perhaps this is a good step forward.

At the same time, I am at a loss as I try to understand the mentality of someone who believes that any kind of resource like IP Addresses could be under the ownership of anyone other than the governing bodies, in this case ARIN or at least AINA.  If it is unclear that ARIN or AINA have "ownership"
of IP Address resources, I am sure there is even less evidence that legacy holders have any legal ownership of the resource.  In a legal grey area like that, who do you think an arbitrator would indicate as the owner of the resource?  Would it be the person who had an IP Address "assigned" to them
15 years ago or the governing bodies which oversee and allocate those resources?  I know where I would put my money, so even in the absence of good faith (which seems to be the case to a degree) I would be compelled (as a legacy holder) to view the resources as under the ownership of ARIN and AINA.

Regards,
Matthew Wilder

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:19 PM
To: Paul Vixie
Cc: Randy Bush; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LRSA concerns (Re: Policy Proposal: Whois IntegrityPolicy Proposal)

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Paul Vixie <vixie at isc.org> wrote:
> community either decides to come after me or stop protecting me."  in 
> other words, to want differential rights between legacy and RSA, i 
> would have had to set my interests apart from the community's 
> interests, while at the same time depending on the community to go on protecting my interests.  bad juju.

Paul,

Legacy resource holders don't rely on anything so amorphous as "The Community" to protect their interests. They rely on finding one or two companies in a competitive market willing to announce their route, on the fact that they have a legal basis on which to use that route (the addresses were
formally assigned to them) and on the lack of any legal basis for anyone other than them (especially ARIN) to challenge that announcement.

At any rate, you asked what fix I would make to the LRSA to bring in more legacy registrants and I gave you my best answers. Like 'em or lump 'em.


On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I don't see a meaningful distinction between "normalizing the 
> relationship" and "governance," if "normalization" includes signing a 
> legally binding contract that gives the signatory both entitlements 
> (an authenticated claim on resource use) and obligations (e.g., to pay 
> a fair share of ARIN costs).

Milton,

I'll defer to your definition and restate my comment:

Perhaps insisting that the LRSA include terms and conditions for which there is not a strong consensus pushes the legacy registrants further than they're willing to go.

I believe there is a strong consensus that it's in everyone's interest for the legacy holders to normalize their relationship with ARIN at least as much as they're willing to.

I believe there is a strong consensus that all active resources should be authenticated in order to fight hijacking.

I believe there is a strong consensus that in order to receive whois and rdns service, the legacy registrants should pay a fair share of the whois and rdns operations cost.

Perhaps an LRSA would be more effective if it focused on those consensus issues alone and left questions about ownership, utilization, revocation, force majeure, et cetera for some other day.

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 (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.